The other lawyer in the case, Attorney Tom made a video going over what they are sueing for and some of the misconceptions.

https://youtu.be/ItiXffyTgQg

People have a claim due to lost profits and potentially missed business opportunities.

Let’s Youtuber A had a sponsor affiliate and a spoken ad spot. Creator makes 2k for the sponsor read and 2% every time someone buys something via link. Honey swoops in and steals the affiliate link (regardless if the user got a coupon or not). The creator no longer getting the 2% and skews the success of the ad.

The creator’s ad performance (ad to finished transaction) is down, so sponsor lowers the commission to 1% and 1.5k for the next video. Enough people use honey and the metrics are bad enough the sponsor doesn’t renew contract with the creator.

On the consumer end, which due to arbitration clauses the lawyers aren’t actively pursuing (at this time) (see linked video).

Oof, you gotta find that FBI post (might have a different 3 letter agency) said that adbock is required for safe browsing. Tell them users can’t click on malware ads if there’s no malware ads to click.

The problem with firing the ones who argued for opt-out is that it wouldn’t leave anyone else because they already fired the ones who argued for opt-in.

No, spread the word. Now you know Asus pre-builts are trash. Even if you dont care about Asus, someone was about to hit the buy button and avoided a cooperate scam.