My understanding from comments on reddit is that part of the suit relies on tortious interference, basically that honey is damaging the relationships between content creators and vendors by masking the source of referrals and therefore making the vendor believe that the content creator is under-performing in their contract.
This thread has started with GP saying "cookie stuffing is illegal" and me replying "does this qualify as cookie stuffing?" I'm not claiming what they did is legal, I'm claiming it might be illegal, just not for "cookie stuffing". As far as I can see there is no evidence that this particular suit claims "cookie stuffing", so there is nothing in it that can add to the question whether this qualifies as "cookie stuffing" or not. Which was my only original question.
