Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cookie stuffing

Cookie stuffing is a fraudulent technique employed in , where malicious affiliates illicitly place tracking cookies on a user's device without the user's knowledge, consent, or interaction with the affiliate's promotional content, enabling the affiliate to claim commissions for subsequent purchases made by that user on a merchant's website. This practice, also known as cookie dropping or forced clicks, undermines the performance-based model of by attributing sales to affiliates who did not drive legitimate traffic or conversions. The mechanism of cookie stuffing typically involves embedding hidden elements on a or application, such as invisible iframes, JavaScript scripts, pop-up windows, extensions, or even plugins, which silently load and inject multiple affiliate tracking cookies into the user's . For instance, a user visiting a seemingly unrelated or might unknowingly have these cookies planted, and if they later purchase from the targeted merchant—such as an e-commerce platform—the affiliate receives credit and payment for the referral, regardless of any actual promotional influence. Common methods include using scripts to automate cookie injection or leveraging stylesheets and images to conceal the activity from the user. Cookie stuffing is widely regarded as illegal and unethical, violating the of most affiliate networks and merchants, as well as broader privacy regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the due to unauthorized tracking and data placement on users' devices. In the , it has been prosecuted as wire fraud, with notable cases including the 2013 convictions of affiliates Dunning and Shawn Hogan, who defrauded of over $35 million through cookie stuffing schemes involving widgets that illicitly stuffed thousands of cookies, resulting in prison sentences of 15 months for Dunning and five months for Hogan. Such practices can lead to affiliate bans, blacklisting, and civil lawsuits, further eroding trust in the affiliate ecosystem. The impacts of cookie stuffing extend beyond individual to systemic harm in , causing merchants to incur undeserved payouts—estimated to account for up to 62% of affiliate in some analyses—while distorting performance metrics and analytics that rely on accurate referral data. Legitimate affiliates suffer from reduced opportunities and as fraudulent actors inflate , and consumers face risks from surreptitious tracking without recourse. To mitigate these effects, merchants and networks employ detection strategies such as monitoring unusual conversion patterns, verifying referral timestamps, and using anti-fraud software to identify and block suspicious cookie injections, alongside rigorous affiliate vetting and policy enforcement.

History

Origins

Affiliate marketing operates as a performance-based model where affiliates earn commissions for driving sales, leads, or other actions to merchants, with tracking typically achieved through HTTP that record the affiliate's referral in the user's . This incentivizes affiliates to promote products via links, but its reliance on cookies for attribution created early vulnerabilities to manipulation. The model's low entry barriers—requiring minimal upfront investment—made it attractive to a wide range of participants, including those seeking to exploit it for unearned gains. The origins of cookie stuffing trace to the rapid rise of affiliate programs in the late 1990s, amid the dot-com boom and expanding . Amazon launched its Associates program in , pioneering the cookie-tracking approach by allowing website owners and bloggers to earn commissions on referred book sales, which quickly scaled to other products. This success spurred the formation of affiliate networks like Commission Junction in 1998, which connected thousands of merchants and affiliates, facilitating billions in tracked transactions but without stringent initial safeguards against abuse. By the early 2000s, as sales surged—reaching over $100 billion annually in the U.S. by 2005—these networks handled massive volumes, amplifying the potential impact of fraudulent tactics. Cookie stuffing first emerged as an exploitation of mechanisms in the early , before standardized tracking protocols and detection tools were widely implemented. Affiliates began using hidden techniques to overwrite or insert , falsely claiming for sales without user interaction via legitimate , thus diverting commissions from honest promoters or retaining them entirely. This preyed on the era's nascent affiliate , where were set via simple HTTP responses without verification of genuine clicks. Key milestones include the first publicly documented cases around 2004, when researcher Ben Edelman identified instances targeting major merchants like and through networks such as LinkShare and Commission Junction. These early detections highlighted the lack of real-time monitoring in affiliate platforms during the expansion, where fraudsters capitalized on high transaction volumes—eBay's affiliate program alone generated millions in commissions annually by mid-decade. By 2005–2006, reports escalated alongside sting operations, such as eBay's collaboration with authorities, underscoring cookie stuffing's ties to the unchecked growth of performance marketing.

Notable Cases

One of the most prominent cases of cookie stuffing occurred between 2006 and 2007, when Brian Dunning, operator of the website "Kessler's Flying Circus," earned approximately $5.2 million in total commissions from 's affiliate program, of which between $200,000 and $400,000 were obtained through cookie stuffing fraud by creating thousands of fake websites that automatically stuffed affiliate cookies onto visitors' browsers using hidden iframes and redirects, without any user interaction or promotion of eBay products. Dunning pleaded guilty to wire fraud in April 2013 and was sentenced in August 2014 to 15 months in , along with three years of supervised release and restitution obligations. In a related high-profile incident, Shawn Hogan, CEO of Digital Point Solutions and one of eBay's top affiliates, earned over $28 million in commissions from eBay, including unearned ones obtained through cookie stuffing from 2003 to 2008, by embedding invisible tracking elements on his websites to force eBay cookies onto users without genuine referrals. Hogan pleaded guilty to wire fraud in April 2013 and was sentenced in May 2014 to five months in federal prison, three years of probation, and a $25,000 fine. Prosecutions for cookie stuffing peaked in the 2010s, driven by investigations from the U.S. Department of Justice and collaborations with affiliate networks like Commission Junction (now ), which saw widespread abuse among its publishers; for instance, in 2010, a indicted Dunning, marking an early federal crackdown on such schemes. Other notable convictions included Christopher in 2010, who received six months in prison for selling cookie-stuffing software kits targeting affiliates. A 2015 study by Chachra et al. analyzed cookie stuffing across 11,700 domains, revealing its prevalence, with 91% of stuffed cookies delivered via redirects—often from typosquatted sites—and heavy targeting of Commission Junction programs, though the research emphasized that prosecuted cases like those involving affiliates represented only a fraction of undetected . In 2023, ad firm Confiant exposed a cookie-stuffing operation by Dataly Media, which had been active since at least 2015 and targeted various affiliate programs by injecting cookies via redirects and hidden scripts, leading to millions in fraudulent commissions. Additionally, in January 2025, GamersNexus filed a against alleging cookie stuffing through its affiliate extensions, highlighting continued issues in the ecosystem.

Technical Aspects

Core Mechanism

In affiliate marketing, third-party HTTP cookies serve as the primary mechanism for tracking user referrals and attributing sales commissions to affiliates. These cookies are small data files set in a user's upon clicking an affiliate , containing identifiers that link the user to the referring affiliate for a defined period, often 30 days or up to a month, during which any qualifying purchase from the credits the affiliate with a , typically 4-10% of the value. Cookie stuffing operates by fraudulently placing these affiliate tracking in a user's without the user's knowledge, intent, or direct , thereby hijacking the attribution process and diverting commissions to the perpetrator even for sales driven by other legitimate channels. This deceptive tactic exploits the persistence of , which remain active until expiration, overwriting by another , or manual deletion, allowing the stuffed to claim for subsequent user actions on the merchant's site. The core process unfolds in three key steps. First, the fraudulent affiliate embeds or triggers the loading of invisible —such as a 1x1 —from the 's affiliate tracking directly in the user's , often without any visible page element. Second, the responds to this request by setting the tracking , associating the user's session with the fraudster's affiliate ID. Third, when the user later visits the and completes a purchase within the 's lifespan, the 's system reads the stuffed and credits the commission to the fraudulent affiliate, despite the absence of any genuine referral from that party. This mechanism preys on fundamental vulnerabilities in early affiliate tracking systems, which did not enforce requirements for explicit user or verifiable before cookie placement, enabling browsers to automatically fetch and process remote content—such as hidden elements or redirects—silently in the background. As a result, fraudulent could be dropped seamlessly, overwriting legitimate ones and capturing commissions without detection in systems reliant on cookie-based attribution alone.

Implementation Techniques

Cookie stuffing implementations primarily rely on web technologies to covertly place affiliate tracking on a user's without their knowledge or interaction. One common method involves iframes, which embed affiliate links in an off-screen or invisible frame on a webpage, causing the to load the content and set automatically. For instance, fraudsters configure iframes with dimensions set to 0 or 1 pixel or apply CSS styles like display:none or visibility:[hidden](/page/Hidden) to conceal them, as observed in 64% and 25% of analyzed cases respectively. Another prevalent technique uses invisible image tags, often 1x1 pixel "pixel tags" sourced from affiliate links and styled to be via similar CSS properties, ensuring the image loads silently and triggers cookie placement. All such -based stuffing instances in a comprehensive study were rendered invisible to evade detection. injections further enable dynamic cookie setting by scripting the creation of these elements or directly manipulating the document to force affiliate redirects, a tactic frequently employed for more sophisticated . Advanced evasion tactics enhance the stealth of these methods. Referrer spoofing, where intermediate domains mask the true origin of the request, appears in 84% of cookie stuffing incidents, often through chained redirects that obscure the fraudster's involvement. URL redirects, prevalent in 91% of cases, utilize /302 status codes, , or to affiliate links across multiple domains, frequently leveraging typosquatted sites to distribute traffic and complicate tracing. Browser extensions represent a more automated vector, with malicious add-ons modifying cookies on sites to redirect commissions; one 2022 analysis identified extensions affecting 1.4 million users that performed such stuffing upon page loads. Practical examples illustrate these techniques in action. Pop-under windows, which open behind the active , load affiliate pages in the background to drop without user notice, often triggered by site visits. Similarly, email-embedded links can execute stuffing via hidden scripts that activate upon interaction or rendering, placing through deceptive attachments or inline elements. These methods adapt to environments by exploiting core mechanics, where HTTP responses from affiliate servers set tracking persisting across sessions.

Regulatory Framework

The regulates practices under 16 CFR Part 255, which outlines guides for endorsements and testimonials in to prevent deceptive practices. These rules require clear of any material connections between endorsers and advertisers, such as affiliate relationships, to ensure consumers are not misled about the source of recommendations. Cookie stuffing constitutes an unfair or deceptive act under Section 5 of the Act by involving unauthorized tracking and fraudulent commission attribution, though Part 255 primarily addresses in endorsements rather than tracking mechanisms directly. In the United States, cookie stuffing is also prosecutable as wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, which criminalizes schemes to defraud using interstate wire communications, including transmissions. This applies because cookie stuffing involves electronic to fraudulently obtain commissions across state lines, as demonstrated in federal cases where perpetrators were charged and convicted for using automated scripts to stuff affiliate cookies on eBay's platform without legitimate user interactions. Major affiliate networks enforce strict policies prohibiting cookie stuffing to maintain program integrity. For instance, Associates' operating agreement bans circumventing commission attribution or artificially generating sessions without customer clicks, such as through unauthorized cookie placement, with violations leading to account termination. Similarly, ShareASale's participating merchants explicitly prohibit cookie stuffing, pop-ups, or misleading links that force affiliate tracking without , incorporating these restrictions into program agreements to prevent fraudulent activity. Internationally, the European Union's (GDPR), effective since 2018, imposes stringent requirements on usage by classifying many affiliate tracking as non-essential processors that necessitate explicit, informed opt-in consent before placement. contravenes GDPR's consent rules under Articles 6 and 7, as it deploys trackers without user permission, rendering the practice non-compliant and subject to fines up to 4% of global annual turnover for violations.

Enforcement and Penalties

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) leads criminal prosecutions against cookie stuffing, often charging perpetrators with wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, while the (FTC) addresses related deceptive practices through civil enforcement. Indictments typically rely on , including analysis of server logs, IP traces, and cookie artifacts, to demonstrate unauthorized cookie placements and fraudulent commission claims. Penalties for wire fraud convictions can include up to 20 years in , substantial fines, and orders for restitution to . In the 2014 case of Shawn Hogan, who engaged in cookie stuffing within eBay's affiliate program, the court imposed a five-month term, a $25,000 fine, and three years of supervised release. Similarly, Brian Dunning received a 15-month sentence in 2014 for a cookie stuffing scheme that defrauded of approximately $5.2 million, along with restitution obligations of $190,017 and three years of supervised release. Within the affiliate industry, networks and merchants respond swiftly by banning offenders from programs, clawing back illicit commissions, and blacklisting individuals across platforms to prevent future participation. Post-2020, these measures have expanded to include civil lawsuits seeking for lost , as seen in the 2025 against PayPal's extension for allegedly using cookie-stuffing tactics to divert affiliate commissions from content creators. Enforcement has intensified in the 2020s amid stricter privacy regulations like the (CCPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which scrutinize unauthorized cookie deployment as a privacy violation. Plans to phase out third-party cookies in browsers were canceled in 2025, but these regulations continue to link cookie stuffing to broader data misuse under updated consent rules.

Ethical Dimensions

Beyond legal ramifications, cookie stuffing raises significant ethical concerns in . It erodes trust among merchants, legitimate affiliates, and consumers by distorting performance metrics and unfairly diverting revenue, often at the expense of those who generate genuine traffic. Industry organizations, such as the (IAB), emphasize ethical standards that promote transparency and fairness, condemning practices like cookie stuffing as violations of professional conduct that harm the ecosystem's sustainability. Affiliates engaging in such tactics face and exclusion from ethical networks committed to performance-based integrity.

Impacts

Economic Effects

Cookie stuffing imposes significant financial burdens on advertisers by forcing them to pay commissions on sales that fraudulent affiliates did not generate, typically ranging from 5% to 30% of the transaction value depending on the program. This results in inflated budgets, as merchants compensate fraudsters for or legitimately driven conversions, draining resources that could support genuine campaigns. For instance, pre-2020 estimates indicated annual losses in the millions for affected programs, with broader affiliate contributing to over $1 billion in global expenditures wasted on invalid traffic. Legitimate affiliates experience direct revenue losses when stuffed cookies overwrite their tracking identifiers, diverting rightful commissions to fraudsters. Studies show this can dilute conversions by 5-10% across affiliate transactions, with some programs reporting up to 20% of budgets eroded by such interference, undermining the incentive structure that rewards authentic promotion. This not only reduces earnings for ethical participants but also distorts performance metrics, making it harder for them to secure partnerships. Consumers face indirect economic consequences, including higher product prices as merchants pass on the costs of fraudulent commissions to offset budget shortfalls. They receive no tangible benefits from the practice, which provides no added value or discounts, while exposing them to unwanted tracking that raises concerns through non-consensual placement. A 2015 study identified cookie stuffing across 11,700 domains, highlighting its widespread prevalence and reliance on techniques like redirects in over 91% of cases. Post-2020, as third-party cookie reliance declined due to privacy regulations, global losses from affiliate fraud including cookie stuffing were estimated at over $3.4 billion annually as of 2022, though adjusted figures account for reduced cookie longevity and tracking efficacy.

Industry-Wide Consequences

Cookie stuffing has significantly eroded trust within the ecosystem, prompting merchants to adopt stricter program terms and reducing overall participation. By misattributing conversions to fraudulent affiliates, the practice creates tension between advertisers and legitimate partners, as honest affiliates often lose rightful commissions when their tracking cookies are overwritten. This wariness led to enhanced vetting processes and shorter cookie durations in the 2010s, exemplified by high-profile enforcement actions against networks like LeadClick Media, which resulted in a $11.9 million judgment in 2015 and contributed to program closures and industry consolidations. The practice has distorted market dynamics, hindering the of legitimate affiliate channels and accelerating a shift toward tracking methods. Fraudulent commissions skew and inflate costs, deterring ethical affiliates from participating due to competitive disadvantages and lost opportunities. Post-GDPR in , cookie stuffing's reliance on unauthorized tracking exacerbated concerns, driving adoption of server-side and cookie-less solutions to ensure compliant attribution. Ethically, cookie stuffing has stigmatized the affiliate industry, fostering perceptions of widespread and prompting calls for greater oversight. It violates core principles of , damaging reputations for merchants and networks alike, and has fueled advocacy for stricter regulations, including 2020s U.S. state privacy laws that mandate for tracking mechanisms. Recent lawsuits, such as the 2025 class action against Shopping for alleged commission theft, underscore this fallout and highlight the need for ethical reforms. In 2025, abandoned its plans to phase out third-party cookies in , allowing such tracking mechanisms to persist and potentially sustaining opportunities for cookie stuffing variants, which requires ongoing vigilance to maintain ecosystem integrity.

Countermeasures

Detection Approaches

Detection of cookie stuffing primarily relies on to identify anomalous patterns in user behavior and affiliate interactions. Merchants and affiliate networks monitor for high bounce rates on affiliate , where users quickly leave without , or mismatched referrers that do not align with expected sources. Tools can flag suspicious 1x1 pixel loads, often used to silently embed affiliate tracking without user interaction. For instance, advanced anti-fraud platforms employ device fingerprinting to detect abnormal redirects or traffic from unusual domains, such as those with suspicious top-level domains like .xyz. Forensic techniques involve detailed audits of cookies and logs to uncover unauthorized placements. Browser developer tools allow manual inspection by clearing cookies, visiting suspect sites, and checking for newly dropped affiliate cookies without legitimate navigation. Server logs are reviewed for unusual cookie-setting events, such as rapid or hidden loads, while IP geolocation analysis flags mismatches where traffic appears from disparate locations despite single-session origins. These methods help trace stuffing back to specific domains or scripts. Behavioral signals provide indirect indicators through performance metrics, such as sudden spikes in affiliate commissions without corresponding increases in verifiable or . In a seminal 2015 study, researchers analyzed HTTP request logs to build browsing session trees and identified fraudulent referrals by examining timing discrepancies, like cookie sets occurring more than two seconds after a , suggesting non-intentional placement. models, including classifiers trained on features like referrer and tag counts from this and contemporaneous datasets, achieve high accuracy—up to 93.3%—in for distinguishing legitimate from stuffed sessions. Integration with third-party fraud detection services enhances real-time identification. Platforms like Anura use multi-dimensional analysis, including real-time monitoring of traffic sources and cookie events, to alert on stuffing attempts. Similarly, ClickGuard provides automated scanning of referral traffic, timestamps, and IP activity for immediate flagging of anomalies. These services often incorporate the behavioral and forensic insights from foundational to offer scalable detection.

Prevention Strategies

Technical safeguards form the foundation of preventing cookie stuffing by limiting the ability of malicious scripts to load hidden resources or set unauthorized tracking cookies. Implementing first-party cookies restricts attribution to legitimate site interactions, as these cookies are only set by the domain the user is actively visiting, thereby blocking third-party manipulations common in stuffing attacks. Cookieless tracking methods, such as device fingerprinting—which analyzes unique browser and device characteristics—or URL parameters for session-based attribution, further reduce reliance on vulnerable cookies and enable verification of genuine user journeys without persistent storage. Additionally, deploying (CSP) headers instructs browsers to block inline scripts, unauthorized iFrames, and external resource loads that could silently drop affiliate cookies, with recommending strict allow-lists for scripts and images to enforce compliance. Program policies emphasize rigorous oversight within affiliate ecosystems to deter fraudulent participation from the outset. Affiliate processes involve of potential partners' websites, sources, and past to ensure alignment with integrity, prioritizing quality affiliates over volume to minimize risk exposure. Commission holds allow merchants to withhold payouts pending post-conversion reviews, using tools like validation and session checks to confirm that referrals match actual user engagement rather than fabricated drops. API-based attribution systems provide a secure alternative by enabling server-side verification of referrals through encrypted data exchanges, ensuring commissions are awarded only for validated clicks and reducing opportunities for stuffing via exploits. Legal and contractual measures reinforce prevention through enforceable agreements and collaborative industry efforts. Contracts should include mandatory clauses requiring affiliates to detail all tracking methods, coupled with explicit prohibitions against cookie stuffing, while granting merchants rights to inspect affiliate sites and data logs for compliance. Collaboration with affiliate networks facilitates shared blacklists of known fraudulent actors, allowing real-time blocking of suspicious publishers across platforms and enhancing collective defense against repeat offenders. As of late 2025, following the phase-out of Privacy Sandbox APIs amid the retention of third-party cookies in Chrome, emerging technologies continue to shift toward privacy-preserving alternatives that curb stuffing vulnerabilities. Server-side tracking and probabilistic attribution models, such as those leveraging aggregated first-party data, replace cookie-dependent systems with anonymized signals that verify conversions without exposing users to unauthorized tracking. This development, announced by Google in October 2025, reinforces the importance of robust third-party cookie monitoring to prevent stuffing exploits. Advanced fraud platforms integrate machine learning for real-time anomaly detection, automatically flagging and blocking iFrame-based or pixel-driven stuffing attempts before they impact attribution integrity.

References

  1. [1]
    What Is Cookie Stuffing - How Does It Work? - SEON
    Cookie stuffing is used by black hat affiliate marketers to trick websites into thinking they have sent them traffic and/or customers. The ultimate goal is ...
  2. [2]
    Cookie Stuffing: How to Detect, Prevent, and Protect - ClickGuard
    Jun 11, 2025 · Cookie stuffing is a type of affiliate fraud used to plant affiliate tracking cookies on a user's device, without the user ever clicking on ...What Is Cookie Stuffing? · How Cookie Stuffing Works · Why Cookie Stuffing Is a...
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
    Laguna Niguel Man Receives Fifteen-Month Prison Term For ...
    Aug 4, 2014 · Dunning pleaded guilty on April 15, 2013, to a Superseding Information charging him with wire fraud. ... eBay through so-called “cookie stuffing.” ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Affiliate Crookies: Characterizing Affiliate Marketing Abuse
    This paper provides a measurement-based characterization of cookie-stuffing fraud in online affiliate marketing.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Risk, Information, and Incentives in Online Affiliate Marketing
    Jun 23, 2014 · The affiliate could also design its cookie-stuffing to be a component of some other web page (a dot on a banner ad, or a section of a ...
  7. [7]
    Cookie-Stuffing Targeting Major Affiliate Merchants - Ben Edelman
    Nov 1, 2004 · LinkShare's repeated awards to affiliates using cookie-stuffing reveal that this technique extends to large affiliates and to well-regarded ...Missing: retraction | Show results with:retraction
  8. [8]
    How “Kessler's Flying Circus” cookie-stuffed its way to $5.2M from ...
    Apr 18, 2013 · California man pleads guilty to an ingenious fraud. ... Between May 2006 and June 2007, Brian Andrew Dunning made $5.2 million—all of it from eBay ...
  9. [9]
    Cookie-Stuffing Could Land eBay's Top Two Affiliates In Jail | MarTech
    According to court documents, Hogan made an astounding $28 million in affiliate commissions from eBay, and Dunning made $7 million. One way they ...
  10. [10]
    Shawn Hogan Sentenced in eBay Affiliate Marketing Scam
    May 1, 2014 · Shawn Hogan, the CEO of a successful online marketing company called Digital Point Solutions, was sentenced to five months in federal prison for his role in ...
  11. [11]
    eBay, the FBI, Shawn Hogan and Brian Dunning - Business Insider
    May 3, 2013 · Hogan's widget stuffed 650,000 eBay cookies, according to eBay's civil complaint against him. Dunning's widget stuffed 20,000. The obvious ...
  12. [12]
    Cookieless Affiliate Tracking: Adapting to a New Era - Phonexa
    Sep 17, 2024 · Cookies track user activity from the initial click to the final purchase, ensuring affiliates are credited for their referrals.
  13. [13]
    Cookie stuffing - Hitprobe
    Image stuffing using 1x1 pixel images loaded from affiliate sites; JavaScript injection that forces cookie placement; Toolbar and browser extension exploits ...
  14. [14]
    Malicious Cookie Stuffing Chrome Extensions with 1.4 Million Users
    Aug 29, 2022 · Malicious Cookie Stuffing Chrome Extensions with 1.4 Million Users | McAfee Blog.Missing: advanced | Show results with:advanced
  15. [15]
    Affiliate Cookie Stuffing Fraud in iFrames: 2025 Guide - Trackier
    Image Pixel Stuffing: These functions similar to iFrames but actually rely on the use of invisible 1×1 pixel images that carry affiliate tracking links.
  16. [16]
    Cookie Stuffing: Security Dictionary, Terms & Definitions - Greip
    Feb 14, 2025 · This can happen through hidden scripts embedded within web pages, advertisements, or email links that automatically execute cookie-setting ...
  17. [17]
    16 CFR Part 255 -- Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and ...
    The Guides address the application of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 USC 45, to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising.
  18. [18]
    16 CFR Part 255: Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and ...
    Jul 26, 2023 · Federal Trade Commission announces updated advertising guides to combat deceptive reviews and endorsements.
  19. [19]
    FTC's Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking
    Jun 29, 2023 · Here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions from advertisers, ad agencies, influencers, bloggers, and others.Missing: 16 CFR 255
  20. [20]
    18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
    18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television. U.S. Code; Notes. prev | next. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise ...
  21. [21]
    Cookie Stuffing" Internet Fraud Schemer Pleads Guilty
    Jun 24, 2014 · McKittrick faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Monies and two boats seized from McKittrick have been ...
  22. [22]
    Amazon Associates Program Policies
    Oct 15, 2025 · Amazon will determine in its sole discretion, in each case, whether a Trade-In Event has occurred or has been disqualified due to violation of ...
  23. [23]
    ShareASale Affiliate Account FAQ
    May 12, 2022 · Below are some of our most commonly asked affiliate questions. Please do not hesitate to reach out to shareasale@shareasale.com if you have a question not ...
  24. [24]
    Wyzant.com Affiliate Program Terms & Conditions
    Cookie stuffing, pop-ups, and false or misleading links are strictly prohibited. ... Cookie Stuffing: You must not mislead customers into clicking on an offer ...
  25. [25]
    Cookies, the GDPR, and the ePrivacy Directive - GDPR.eu
    Given the amount of data that cookies can contain, they can be considered personal data in certain circumstances and, therefore, subject to the GDPR. Before ...
  26. [26]
    Do Affiliate Cookies Require Consent? Or Are Affiliate ... - TermsFeed
    Apr 25, 2025 · Affiliate cookies are small tracking files dropped on users' browsers when they click an affiliate link. These files act as digital breadcrumbs ...
  27. [27]
    What is Cookie Stuffing? Methods & Effects - Spider AF
    Mar 17, 2025 · Cookie stuffing, also known as cookie dropping, isn't about baking but rather manipulating web traffic for personal gain.Cookie Stuffing Affiliate... · What are the Effects of Cookie...
  28. [28]
    Laguna Niguel Man Pleads Guilty To Defrauding ebay
    Apr 18, 2013 · In his plea agreement, Dunning admitted that he received payments for revenue actions for which he was not entitled to be compensated, but ...
  29. [29]
    Is Cookie Stuffing Or Cookie Dropping - Illegal? By Scaleo
    Jan 4, 2023 · The FTC has the authority to bring enforcement actions against deceptive or misleading business practices, and it has the power to levy fines ...
  30. [30]
    Lessons from the PayPal Honey Scandal: Cookie Stuffing, Class ...
    Mar 18, 2025 · In respect to everything, these allegations eventually led to a class action lawsuit being filed by the EagleTeam LLP & other creators. The ...Missing: networks blacklisting civil
  31. [31]
    Google ends third-party cookie phaseout plans - IAPP
    Jul 23, 2024 · Google is ending its long-running work to phaseout third-party cookies. The company announced 22 July intentions to leave cookies available ...Missing: stuffing | Show results with:stuffing
  32. [32]
    Privacy Enforcement: Shift Toward Cookie Consent?
    Apr 24, 2025 · In this blog post, we discuss how the CPPA's enforcement action against Honda may be an indicator of a broader enforcement trend around cookies management.Missing: phase- | Show results with:phase-
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Affiliate Crookies: Characterizing Affiliate Marketing Abuse
    In this study we characterized the abuse of affiliate marketing for monetary gains through the use of techniques broadly classified as cookie-stuffing. Overall, ...Missing: involvement | Show results with:involvement
  34. [34]
    How Cookie Stuffing is Used to Commit Affiliate Fraud - CHEQ
    Jun 8, 2022 · Cookie stuffing is a form of invalid malicious activity in which an affiliate marketer plants a batch of cookies on a visitor's browser via a third-party site ...
  35. [35]
    The Hidden Cost Of Affiliate Marketing: Fraudsters Masquerading As ...
    Oct 6, 2025 · Cookie Stuffing: This tactic involves fraudulent affiliates dropping third-party cookies ... stuffing impacts 5-10% of affiliate marketing ...Missing: inflated | Show results with:inflated
  36. [36]
    The Honey Trap: Hidden Dangers of Cookie Stuffing - TrafficGuard
    Jan 29, 2025 · Cookie stuffing occurs when fraudsters manipulate affiliate tracking systems by secretly placing cookies on a user's device without their knowledge.
  37. [37]
    Federal Court Rules Affiliate Marketing Network and its Parent ...
    Apr 6, 2015 · Federal Court Rules Affiliate Marketing Network and its Parent Company Must Turn Over $11.9 Million They Received From Deceptive Marketing ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  38. [38]
    Cookie Stuffing In Affiliate Marketing: What It Is, How It Works, And ...
    Rating 4.9 (141) · Free · Business/ProductivityJun 19, 2025 · These cookies are designed to track user activity and attribute any subsequent purchases to the affiliate, regardless of whether the affiliate ...Missing: core HTTP
  39. [39]
    Don't Let Cookie Stuffing Ruin Your Affiliate Marketing
    Mar 10, 2022 · Cookie stuffing can result in payouts to affiliate marketers that have done nothing but commit fraud.
  40. [40]
    Exploring the Impact of Cookie Stuffing on Affiliate Marketing
    Feb 7, 2024 · Cookie stuffing has had a pervasive and harmful impact on affiliate marketing. It distorts the ecosystem, results in financial losses, and ...Missing: higher prices
  41. [41]
    Google's About-Face on Third-Party Cookies: What It Means for ...
    Apr 28, 2025 · July 2024: Google announces it is scrapping plans for automatic third-party cookie deprecation, opting for a new user choice approach instead.
  42. [42]
    Affiliate Cookie Stuffing: Detection & Prevention - Spider AF
    Mar 17, 2025 · Learn how to spot and stop affiliate cookie stuffing fraud. Practical tips for businesses to detect and prevent deceptive practices in ...Missing: referrer | Show results with:referrer
  43. [43]
    Compliance for Affiliates Part 2: Forced Clicks & Cookie Stuffing
    Oct 3, 2023 · Forcing clicks, also known as “cookie-stuffing,” is a particularly popular way that rogue affiliates gain commissions fraudulently.<|control11|><|separator|>
  44. [44]
    [PDF] No Please, After You: Detecting Fraud in Affiliate Marketing Networks
    *domains/domain-configuration\.aspx*. Affiliate ID Values tag ... cookie stuffing. • Conclusions: Users are relatively unharmed by affiliate ...
  45. [45]
    How to Identify and Prevent Cookie Stuffing in Your Digital Campaigns
    Cookie stuffing is a type of affiliate marketing fraud where cookies are placed on a user's device without their knowledge. This tricks advertisers into ...
  46. [46]
    Content Security Policy - OWASP Cheat Sheet Series
    A strong CSP provides an effective second layer of protection against various types of vulnerabilities, especially XSS.
  47. [47]
    Combating Cookie Stuffing in Affiliate Fraud - Anura
    Cookie stuffing is a form of affiliate fraud that has cost companies millions of advertising dollars. Learn what it is and how to stop it in our blog!Missing: 11700 domains 91%
  48. [48]
    Prepare Your Marketing for a Post-Cookie World in 2025 - OWOX
    May 22, 2024 · Why are Cookies Being Phased Out? · Privacy Concerns: Third-party cookies often track users without explicit consent, leading to privacy issues.