Isn't the problem that none of this was transparent to the user? That honey takes affiliate commissions and MAYBE gives some of that money back to the user? That honey takes credit for the sale and MAYBE stands down in certain circumstances?
I don't think any of this is transparent to the user. That's the scam.
We always tried to be as transparent to our users as possible in the product, in the faq, in our customer support, etc.
You can see evidence of that approach at 6:17 in Jonathon's video in the response that he got from customer service about how Honey works (even when he intentionally removes critical context). He reads a support email that says:
"If Honey is activated and is the last program used while shopping on a site, it is likely Honey will receive credit for the purchase, and Gold will be earned by the member. However, if your favorite influencer's affiliate link was the last program associated with your purchase during your shopping on the site then they will receive the credit for the purchase. Keep in..."
Notably he stopped reading before the "and Gold will be earned by the member" because it didn't fit his narrative.
I know it flashed on the screen faster than anyone could read and was zoomed so you couldn't see the whole thing on one screen but would you consider this level of transparency adequate if he read the whole thing?
I don't think any of this is transparent to the user. That's the scam.