There is no disagreement about that. Murder is also criminal. The disagreement is whether what Honey did classifies as "cookie stuffing". (I hope there is no disagreement that it does not qualify as murder, which is a different crime.)
> Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud.
This is ... not the definition of what "wire fraud" is, but let's leave it aside as it's irrelevant to this discussion.
> Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension
I have not seen any evidence that Honey's extension stuffs more than one cookie for any given transaction. In my understanding "cookie stuffing" refers to a practice of stuffing a ton of cookies for one transaction, not to a practice of "stuffing" one cookie for multiple transactions. Moreover, "cookie stuffing" is not a result of "stuffing" a "cookie", just like "guinea pig" is not a "pig" and it didn't come from a place known as "Guinea". "Cookie stuffing" is a specific legal term describing a certain well-defined behavior, and it would be inaccurate to apply it to anything that involves "cookies" and "stuffing". In other words, if I put some jelly inside an Oreo, this would not qualify as "criminal fraud" known as "cookie stuffing", even though it can be said that by doing that I'm "stuffing" (putting "stuff") inside a "cookie" (Oreo). That's why I asked if you're a lawyer -- they usually understand that e.g. "wire fraud" could be done without any "wire", for instance completely wirelessly -- or that someone committing a "regular" fraud while holding a pack of wire in their hand does not commit "wire fraud".
P.S. The search for "stuffing" in the filing you attached brings no results, so I assume the lawyers also don't argue that Honey engaged in "cookie stuffing" (which is criminal).
A distinction without a difference. It's functionally the same whether you store the same referral info elsewhere and stuff the cookies "just in time" vs stuffing the cookies all at once beforehand.
Functionally the extension is inserting itself as a second impromptu persistence mechanism ("cookie jar"), allowing it to stuff its cookies at a different phase of the e-commerce flow.
Slightly altered mechanism, same effect, same crime.
Similar actions can result in different verdicts. For example, an act of firing a gun on one end and having a dead body on the other can result in a whole variety of verdicts, which includes (but not limited to) “terrorism”, “murder”, “killing”, “negligence”, or “self-defense”. You can have several functionally identical cases — e.g. same gun, same ammunition, same wounds, etc. - and still end up with a variety of verdicts, from “not guilty” to “death sentence”.
I hope you don't mind if I'll wait for the court verdict on whether it was the same intent or not. Courts usually give more substantiated verdicts with regard to intent when they review all the available evidence, which I assume you don't have (neither does the court at this stage).
There is no disagreement about that. Murder is also criminal. The disagreement is whether what Honey did classifies as "cookie stuffing". (I hope there is no disagreement that it does not qualify as murder, which is a different crime.)
> Obtaining money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses is wire fraud.
This is ... not the definition of what "wire fraud" is, but let's leave it aside as it's irrelevant to this discussion.
> Honey's extension stuffs a ton of different affiliate cookies via its extension
I have not seen any evidence that Honey's extension stuffs more than one cookie for any given transaction. In my understanding "cookie stuffing" refers to a practice of stuffing a ton of cookies for one transaction, not to a practice of "stuffing" one cookie for multiple transactions. Moreover, "cookie stuffing" is not a result of "stuffing" a "cookie", just like "guinea pig" is not a "pig" and it didn't come from a place known as "Guinea". "Cookie stuffing" is a specific legal term describing a certain well-defined behavior, and it would be inaccurate to apply it to anything that involves "cookies" and "stuffing". In other words, if I put some jelly inside an Oreo, this would not qualify as "criminal fraud" known as "cookie stuffing", even though it can be said that by doing that I'm "stuffing" (putting "stuff") inside a "cookie" (Oreo). That's why I asked if you're a lawyer -- they usually understand that e.g. "wire fraud" could be done without any "wire", for instance completely wirelessly -- or that someone committing a "regular" fraud while holding a pack of wire in their hand does not commit "wire fraud".
P.S. The search for "stuffing" in the filing you attached brings no results, so I assume the lawyers also don't argue that Honey engaged in "cookie stuffing" (which is criminal).