What is the ruling on marketers competing to attract customers to websites, where each website specifies a maximum period for benefiting from the commission (one to six months), and websites differ in determining who benefits from the commission (the first marketer or the last) if two marketers bring in the same customer, knowing that the commission is given to only one marketer and is not divided? And what is the ruling in the three aforementioned cases: (1. Not disclosing who the commission is given to, 2. Giving it to the first marketer, 3. Giving it to the last marketer)?

Brokerage is permissible if it does not involve assisting in a forbidden sale. It is considered by jurists to be a form of ju'alah (reward for a specific task). The variation among companies in determining who among their employees is entitled to the reward is acceptable, provided it is subject to clear rules. The second scenario, where the commission recipient is identified as the one who first brought the customer and their right remains for a month, is permissible. Likewise, the third scenario, where the commission is due only to the one who brought the customer, is permissible, provided that the company specifies to its employees one of these two methods for determining the beneficiary of the reward. As for the first case, if the company has a system it operates by, but it is hidden from the broker, then the broker must inquire about it. If the company does not specify the rightful recipient but chooses them based on what it deems fit, without the brokers knowing its system, then the brokerage is not valid due to the resulting jahalah (ambiguity).