Capital One Faces Lawsuit for Stealing Social Media Creators’ Affiliate Commissions

Alexandria, VA — Capital One must defend itself in court after a federal judge ruled that social media creators can pursue a lawsuit accusing the bank’s popular Capital One Shopping browser extension of hijacking millions in affiliate marketing commissions.

On Monday night, U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga rejected Capital One’s request to dismiss the case, allowing claims against the bank to move forward. The lawsuit was filed by a class of bloggers, influencers, YouTubers, and other content creators who allege that Capital One’s extension interferes with affiliate tracking technology. The plaintiffs say the extension overwrites referral codes when consumers check out online, making it appear as if Capital One referred the sale, thereby diverting commissions away from the original creators.

How Capital One Shopping Allegedly Diverts Commissions

Capital One Shopping is a browser extension installed by over 10 million users, designed to help consumers find discounts automatically. However, creators claim that the extension silently inserts Capital One’s affiliate links during the checkout process — even when the buyer originally clicked a creator’s referral link. This practice allegedly redirects the affiliate commission from the creator to Capital One.

Affiliate marketing works on the principle that creators share unique referral links on social media or websites. When followers use these links to purchase goods or services, creators earn commissions paid by the merchant or third-party marketers. The lawsuit argues that Capital One Shopping disrupts this system, unfairly cutting creators out of their rightful earnings.

Legal Claims Allowed to Proceed

Judge Trenga’s ruling allows creators to pursue allegations that Capital One was unjustly enriched by this practice, unlawfully interfered with creators’ contracts and economic relationships, and violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which addresses unauthorized computer access. However, the judge dismissed some claims, including conversion and certain state law violations.

Capital One’s Defense

In its defense, Capital One stated that merchants ultimately control how commissions are allocated, not the extension. The bank also argued that the lawsuit reflects creators’ frustration with merchants who may not always share commissions fairly.

This case is not isolated. Similar lawsuits have targeted Microsoft Shopping and PayPal Honey browser extensions over nearly identical affiliate commission hijacking claims. The rising legal scrutiny highlights growing concerns about transparency and fairness in the booming affiliate marketing sector — a crucial income source for many digital creators.

Capital One’s Expansion into Shopping Extensions Draws Legal Scrutiny

Capital One entered the affiliate marketing space by acquiring the shopping extension startup Wikibuy in 2018. This strategic move aimed to leverage e-commerce trends and offer consumers discount-finding tools while expanding the bank’s digital footprint.

However, the lawsuit challenges how Capital One’s browser extension operates within the affiliate ecosystem. Plaintiffs argue the extension redirects commissions from creators to Capital One by overriding referral tracking codes during checkout, a practice that Capital One denies.

Lawsuit Could Impact Affiliate Marketing Industry

If the court sides with the social media creators, the ruling could set a precedent that restricts how companies use browser extensions to capture affiliate commissions. This could prompt major changes across the digital marketing landscape, affecting creators, merchants, and platforms alike.

The case, In re Capital One Financial Corp, Affiliate Marketing Litigation (Case No. 25-00023), is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, with both sides preparing for further proceedings.

Also Read: Walmart and Capital One Resolve Legal Dispute Over Credit Card Agreement