The Official Honey Response to Cookie Hijacking

When the affiliate marketing world erupted with allegations against Honey in December 2024, the silence from PayPal’s $4 billion acquisition was deafening. But in January 2025, Ryan Hudson, the co-founder who built Honey from a leaked Reddit prototype into one of the most recognisable browser extensions in the world, finally broke that silence. His Reddit AMA response reveals a company standing firm against what it calls misunderstood business practices, while the broader industry grapples with fundamental questions about attribution, transparency, and ethics.

The Man Behind the Extension Speaks

Ryan Hudson’s journey from MIT Sloan graduate to billion-dollar entrepreneur reads like a Silicon Valley fairy tale. Founded in November 2012 by entrepreneurs Ryan Hudson and George Ruan, Honey began its journey in Los Angeles, California, after building a prototype of the browser extension in late October 2012. A bug tester leaked the prototype to Reddit, where it gained adoption.

But when MegaLag’s explosive investigation sent shockwaves through the creator economy, Hudson found himself defending not just his former company, but an entire business model that the affiliate marketing industry was already questioning.

“Is Honey a Scam? No.”

Hudson’s response was unequivocal. The claims stem from a viral video by YouTuber MegaLag, which alleged that Honey manipulates discount codes and diverts affiliate commissions from content creators. Hudson refuted MegaLag’s key points, stating outright, “Is Honey a scam? No.”

The co-founder’s defense centered on two key arguments that challenge the prevailing narrative about cookie hijacking. First, he addressed the allegations about manipulated discount codes, explaining that Honey’s use of vanity codes was intended to support creator attribution rather than deceive users. “An equivalent code of equal value to the best ones publicly available was always a policy requirement when I managed Honey,” he clarified.

This assertion directly contradicts claims that Honey deliberately suppressed better discount codes in favor of retailer partnerships. Hudson dismissed accusations that Honey suppressed better codes in favour of lesser discounts dictated by retailers, calling MegaLag’s claims “bold” and “unsupported by evidence.”

The Attribution Defense Strategy

Perhaps more significantly, Hudson’s response reveals a fundamental disagreement about how affiliate marketing should work. Addressing the second major allegation – that Honey was stealing affiliate commissions – Hudson argued that MegaLag had misunderstood how affiliate tracking works.

This defense strategy positions Honey not as a bad actor exploiting the system, but as a legitimate participant in an ecosystem where last-click attribution has always been contentious. The implication is clear: if you don’t like how browser extensions interact with affiliate links, the problem isn’t with Honey—it’s with the attribution system itself.

The Data Challenge

Hudson went further, challenging his critics to provide concrete evidence of wrongdoing. He challenged MegaLag to provide concrete proof of wrongdoing, stating, “If he has other data… it should be easy for him to come forward with receipts.”

This data-driven defense reflects a broader strategy that tech companies often employ when facing allegations: if you can’t prove specific harm with concrete numbers, then the allegations remain theoretical. It’s a position that puts the burden of proof on accusers while allowing companies to continue operating under existing policies.

Industry Impact and the Broader Context

Hudson’s defense comes as the entire browser extension ecosystem faces unprecedented scrutiny. As Affiverse Media has documented, companies under investigation including “Honey (owned by PayPal), Rakuten, Capital One Shopping (formerly Wikibuy), Piggy, RetailMeNot, Ibotta, Cently, Drop, SlickDeals, CamelCamelCamel, Avast Safe Price, Coupert, Earny, BeFrugal, PriceBlink, Invisible Hand, Swagbucks, Coupon Cabin, Karma,” no affiliate can afford to remain complacent.

The timing of Hudson’s response is particularly significant given the mounting legal pressure. On December 29, 2024, a class action lawsuit against PayPal was filed in United States federal court by three law firms, including one owned by YouTuber LegalEagle, over the affiliate marketing controversy.

The Market’s Verdict

While Hudson maintains his position, the market has already delivered its verdict. As a result of the controversy, Honey lost roughly 3 million of its 20 million users within two weeks of the allegations surfacing. The exodus represents a stunning 15% user loss in just fourteen days, suggesting that regardless of the technical merits of Hudson’s defense, consumers have already made their judgment.

The regulatory response has been equally swift. Google’s updated Chrome extension policies now explicitly address the practices that Honey employed. In March 2025, Google updated their policies for extensions published to its Chrome Web Store, explicitly disallowing extensions that claim affiliate commissions without providing discounts. Subsequently, Honey updated their extension to stop claiming affiliate revenue in cases where they are not able to provide a discount.

The PIE Connection: Lessons Learned?

Perhaps most telling is Hudson’s current venture, PIE (People’s Internet Experiment), which promises to revolutionise online advertising by giving users control over their ad experience. The project represents either a genuine evolution in thinking about user consent and transparency, or, as critics suggest, another iteration of the same fundamental approach that made Honey controversial.

In the comment section, one user queried how Hudson might bolster stand-down approaches, to which he responded advocating for the afrsc=1 parameter. Pie recently made an industry callout for the standardisation of this parameter across affiliate marketing.

What This Means for Affiliate Marketing

Hudson’s response illuminates the central tension in modern affiliate marketing: the conflict between technological capability and ethical responsibility. While companies like Honey possess the technical ability to insert themselves into the purchase funnel, the industry is grappling with whether this capability should translate into entitlement.

As our analysis of affiliate marketing tensions demonstrates, the allegations claim that PayPal Honey overrides affiliate tracking cookies from influencers and publishers, effectively taking credit for sales generated by their efforts. This practice, known as “cookie stuffing” or “last-click hijacking,” has sparked a legal battle and raised ethical questions about how affiliate programs are managed.

The Transparency Question

Hudson’s defense notably emphasises that Honey operated within existing industry frameworks and delivered value to users. Ultimately, Hudson stood by Honey’s practices under his leadership, insisting it saved consumers billions and supported content creators.

However, this raises a critical question about transparency. The controversy suggests that many users—and even content creators—didn’t fully understand how Honey monetised their shopping behavior. The broader implications for affiliate tracking show how attribution hijacking is costing brands more than they realise. Fraudulent partners manipulate tracking to steal credit for sales, often through shady tactics like cookie stuffing or browser extensions.

Legal and Regulatory Landscape

The legal challenges facing Honey represent more than just a single company’s problems—they signal a potential reshaping of how affiliate marketing operates. Multiple class action lawsuits have emerged, and the outcomes could establish precedents for the entire industry.

The regulatory response has been swift and decisive. Beyond Google’s policy changes, the controversy has accelerated discussions about preventing ad hijacking and establishing industry standards for attribution and transparency.

The Future of Browser Extensions in Affiliate Marketing

Hudson’s response suggests that browser extension companies will continue to argue that they provide legitimate value within existing systems. However, the industry’s reaction—from Google’s policy changes to the mass user exodus—indicates that this position may no longer be tenable.

The controversy has highlighted fundamental attribution challenges and forced a conversation about whether last-click attribution models are fit for purpose in an age of sophisticated browser extensions and automated purchasing tools.

Conclusion: A Watershed Moment

Ryan Hudson’s Reddit AMA response represents more than just a former CEO defending his company—it’s a defense of an entire approach to digital commerce that prioritises technical capability over explicit consent. While Hudson maintains that Honey operated ethically within existing frameworks, the industry’s response suggests that those frameworks themselves are under fundamental challenge.

The question isn’t whether Honey technically violated existing rules, but whether the rules themselves adequately protect the interests of content creators, consumers, and the broader affiliate marketing ecosystem. Hudson’s challenge for concrete evidence misses the point: the evidence is in the millions of users who have already voted with their uninstall buttons, the Google policy changes, and the class action lawsuits that continue to mount.

The Honey controversy has become a watershed moment for affiliate marketing, forcing the industry to confront uncomfortable questions about transparency, consent, and fair attribution. Whether Hudson’s technical defense will hold up in court remains to be seen, but the court of public opinion has already rendered its verdict.

As the industry moves forward, the lessons from this controversy will likely shape new standards for transparency, attribution, and ethical conduct. The age of “move fast and break things” appears to be ending, replaced by demands for explicit consent, clear attribution, and genuine value creation—not just for companies and their bottom lines, but for the creators and consumers who make the entire ecosystem possible.