Fraud Allegation Dispute regarding Huffson Partners

[secure2026]

We are submitting a formal complaint against Huffson Partners for unfair business practices, unjustified traffic rejection, and withholding earned commissions. After delivering 15 First-Time Deposits (FTDs) under agreed parameters, Huffson Partners retroactively flagged 100% of our traffic as "fraudulent." When we requested an official audit report, raw logs, or compliance data, they flatly refused to share any evidence.

Core Issues​

1. Bad Faith Delayed Flagging: If quality was an issue, Huffson Partners should have alerted us within the first 5 to 7 FTDs. Waiting until 15 FTDs to issue a blanket rejection shows clear bad faith.
2. Financial Loss: We spent substantial capital on media buys to drive these conversions. Huffson Partners absorbed our traffic while leaving us with sunk ad costs.

​

 

[MissExposé]

Hello @secure2026 please note that we do not have Huffson Partners listed with us, but we can try to help by reaching out to their reps and informing them about your complaint. Please share your affiliate account username via PM.

 

[secure2026]

Hello @secure2026 please note that we do not have Huffson Partners listed with us, but we can try to help by reaching out to their reps and informing them about your complaint. Please share your affiliate account username via PM.

Thankyou for reverting

 

[MissExposé]

@secure2026 your complaint has been sent to their representatives and if there is a feedback, we will inform you here.

 

[MissExposé]

Hi @secure2026 and AGD members,

We have received a response from Huffson Group regarding this complaint, along with supporting screenshots.

According to their representative, the traffic requirements and KPIs were agreed upon before the cooperation began, including a test cap of 15–20 FTDs per GEO and a minimum 30% repeat deposit rate.

Huffson Group claims that their investigation identified suspicious traffic patterns, stating that all 16 deposits originated from the same device through a single proxy. They also reported that the repeat deposit rate reached only 25%, below the agreed 30% threshold.

Based on these findings, the program maintains that its decision to reject the payment was justified under the agreed terms.

We would like to emphasize that these are the program's claims, and we are sharing their explanation to ensure both sides have an opportunity to present their position.