Case Information
• Filing Date: April 1, 2025
• Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
• Plaintiffs: Lily Fitzgerald, Ian Crowley, Antonio Minichiello, Alicia Freeman, Annabelle Regan, Nicholas McDonald, Michael Amenti, Caleb Brackney, Abigail Roskind, Jordan Leturgez, and Annabelle Cruz (on behalf of a proposed nationwide class)
• Defendants: PayPal, Inc. and PayPal Holdings, Inc.
• Case Number: 5:25-cv-02993-SVK
• Class Action: Yes
• Jury Trial Demanded: Yes
Allegations at a Glance
A group of eleven plaintiffs from across the U.S. have filed a class action lawsuit against PayPal over its Honey browser extension. The complaint alleges that Honey falsely advertises its ability to find the best available online discount codes, thereby misleading consumers and depriving them of potential savings.
The plaintiffs claim Honey often applies less favorable promo codes—sometimes worse than those found through a basic Google search—while excluding more beneficial offers from non-partner merchants. This allegedly boosts PayPal’s referral commissions while leaving users with higher prices. They argue the browser extension’s marketing misleads consumers into thinking it is offering comprehensive, unbiased savings.
Despite a 2020 inquiry by the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division that prompted Honey to promise it would discontinue certain misleading claims, plaintiffs allege the deceptive messaging persists both on the Honey website and in its operations.
Key Allegations
• Honey misrepresents its ability to find the best coupon codes.
• It prioritizes merchant-partner codes over better ones available elsewhere.
• Consumers are led to believe Honey’s offers are comprehensive and unbiased.
• PayPal profits from commissions based on these misrepresentations.
• Users incurred financial loss from missed savings.
Legal Claims
✅ Unjust Enrichment (Nationwide)
✅ California Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
✅ California False Advertising Law (FAL)
✅ California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
✅ Consumer protection statutes in:
- New York
- Michigan
- Virginia
- Alabama
- West Virginia
- New Hampshire
- Colorado
Relief Sought
💰 Actual, statutory, and punitive damages
💰 Restitution and disgorgement of profits
💰 Attorneys’ fees and costs
🔧 Injunctive relief to end deceptive practices
Do You Have a Question You'd Like Help With? Contact Debt Coach Damon Day. Click here to reach Damon.
📢 Corrective advertising and disclosure of true promotional methods
The Bottom Line
This case centers on allegations that PayPal’s Honey extension deceives users about finding the best prices online, favoring its own profits over consumer savings. If true, the case highlights how seemingly helpful digital tools can mislead users while generating hidden revenue.
Legal Disclaimer
Lawsuits are based on allegations only. The claims described here have not been proven in court and may be dismissed, settled, or withdrawn.
✅ Fact Check Summary: All factual claims in this post, including the timeline, alleged conduct, legal claims, and damages sought, are accurately drawn from the original complaint. No information has been added beyond what was stated in the lawsuit.
👥 Parties: Lily Fitzgerald, Ian Crowley, Antonio Minichiello, Alicia Freeman, Annabelle Regan, Nicholas McDonald, Michael Amenti, Caleb Brackney, Abigail Roskind, Jordan Leturgez, Annabelle Cruz (Plaintiffs); PayPal, Inc., PayPal Holdings, Inc. (Defendants)
📍 For the current status of this case, visit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69832190/1/fitzgerald-v-paypal-inc/
