Phia accused of 'cookie stuffing 44%

By Dominic-Madori Davis0%

7/11/2026, 12:29:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 34.1% saturation with 156 hits. Analysis detected 1,094 faulty-reasoning hits from 457 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.2% and a BS Rank of 44% (12,269 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.10% of the article peer group.

5:29 PM PDT · July 10, 2026 
Image Credits: Kimberly White/Getty Images for TechCrunch 
Dominic-Madori Davis 
Phia accused of ‘cookie stuffing,’ taking affiliate credit on purchases it didn’t earn 
Phia, the shopping startup co-founded by Bill Gates’ daughter, Phoebe Gates, and Sophia Kianni, has been accused of a practice known as “cookie stuffing,” which may have helped the product receive commissions and credit for sales it did not actually generate, according to a Bloomberg investigation. 
The report has sparked controversy and led to Phia’s suspension from Impact.com , a leading affiliate and influencer platform. 
Other startups have been sued over “cookie stuffing,” notably Honey, which is owned by PayPal and remains the subject of an ongoing class action lawsuit. 
Founded in 2025, Phia has raised more than $40 millio n in funding and has a star-studded list of investors, including Kim Kardashian and Hailey Bieber. 
The startup developed an app as a browser extension that works somewhat like Google Flights, but for shopping. 
Phia helps customers find the lowest-priced items across various retailers as well as discount codes to use when shopping. 
The company takes a commission on purchases made through the platform through an industry practice known as affiliate marketing. 
The Bloomberg investigation, as well as findings from an independent consultant and a competitor, found that if a user shopped at an online retailer  even if they arrived at the site on their own or through another affiliate program like Wirecutter  Phia would open a new tab in the background. 
During the checkout process, Phia would override the referral codes from other affiliates and instead inject its own, allowing it to take credit for and potentially receive a commission on a purchase it didn’t earn. 
Once the issue was flagged to Phia, a spokesperson told Bloomberg that all necessary changes had been made to fix the issue. 
A check by Bloomberg found the issue had been resolved. 
It’s unclear if the fix is enough to satisfy the retailers and affiliate partners that work with Phia. 
TechCrunch reached out to Phia for comment and has not received a response. 
Phia , Phoebe Gates , Startups 
Last chance to save up to $190 on TechCrunch Founder Summit. 
Join 1,000+ founders and VCs at all stages for real-world scaling insights and connections that move the needle. 
Savings end June 26, 11:59 p.m. 
PT . 
Subscribe for the industry’s biggest tech news 
Florida ransomware negotiator convicted for helping ransomware gang extort US companies 
Charles Hudson shares the common mistakes he’s seen after investing in 500+ startups 
Open source AI matters more than ever, according to Hugging Face’s Clem Delangue 
Oratomic raises $300M to build a viable quantum computer that needs only 20K qubits 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.6%Dominic-Madori Davis: 5.9%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias23.6%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Dominic-Madori Davis: 4.2%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic11.2%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Dominic-Madori Davis: 2.4%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect3.9%This article: 3.7%Dominic-Madori Davis: 1.9%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.7%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.2%Dominic-Madori Davis: 2.8%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias11.2%This article: 3.9%Dominic-Madori Davis: 2.0%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias3.9%This article: 31.1%Dominic-Madori Davis: 12.1%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias31.1%This article: 4.8%Dominic-Madori Davis: 1.2%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Dominic-Madori Davis: 7.5%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.7%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 5.7%Dominic-Madori Davis: 1.4%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 34.1%Dominic-Madori Davis: 13.9%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority34.1%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.5%Dominic-Madori Davis: 2.7%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.9%Dominic-Madori Davis: 3.0%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon3.9%This article: 5.7%Dominic-Madori Davis: 1.4%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion5.7%This article: 10.1%Dominic-Madori Davis: 2.5%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question10.1%This article: 4.2%Dominic-Madori Davis: 1.0%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.2%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.5%Dominic-Madori Davis: 2.6%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof10.5%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.8%Dominic-Madori Davis: 1.7%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.7%Dominic-Madori Davis: 3.7%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.7%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.9%Dominic-Madori Davis: 4.9%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 1.1%Dominic-Madori Davis: 1.0%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.1%This article: 3.9%Dominic-Madori Davis: 2.4%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice3.9%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dominic-Madori Davis: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Dominic-Madori Davis: 10.2%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.3%

457 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers6.1%attributed speech429writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDominic-Madori Davis • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCharles Hudson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageClem Delangue • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Charles Hudson

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words46% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%Charles Hudson: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%Charles Hudson: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Charles Hudson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%Charles Hudson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.