Doing business "not easy" in California, billionaire heiress complains

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Snyder cites challenges of raising a family and doing business in California as reasons for her move

• In-N-Out will open a new office in Franklin, Tennessee to support its southeastern expansion

• Company maintains firm stance against broader East Coast expansion, saying Florida has begged us

Lynsi Snyder, the billionaire president and owner of In-N-Out Burger, announced she is leaving California and relocating to Tennessee as the iconic burger brand opens a new eastern territory office to support its expansion into the southeastern U.S.

In a recent appearance on the Relatable podcast hosted by Allie Beth Stuckey, Snyder said the company is building a new office in Franklin, Tennessee part of a larger move to establish a presence in the state where In-N-Out plans to open 35 restaurants.

Were building an office in Franklin, so Im actually moving out there, Snyder said. Theres a lot of great things about California, but raising a family is not easy here. Doing business is not easy here.

Snyder, the only grandchild of In-N-Out founders Harry and Esther Snyder, has long been the face of the famously family-run burger chain. Despite her move, she assured customersthat California remains central to the companys identity. The bulk of our stores are still going to be here in California, she said.

Florida has "begged" for new burger joints

In February, In-N-Out announced plans to close its Irvine, Calif., headquarters and consolidate its two West Coast offices into a single facility in Baldwin Park, the city where the first In-N-Out stand opened in 1948. Snyder told Stuckey the Irvine office is expected to close by 2030.

The new Tennessee office is part of a carefully planned expansion, Snyder said. In-N-Out famously adheres to a strict logistics model that requires a patty production facility within 300 miles of any location, a constraint that has limited its national footprint. Still, the company is growing steadily into the American South and Midwest.

Despite interest from states like Florida and others on the East Coast, Snyder said she remains committed to a more selective expansion strategy.

Florida has begged us and were still saying no, she said. You know, the East Coast states, were still saying no. You know, were able to reach Tennessee from our Texas warehouse.

Snyders relocation underscores a broader trend of California-based business leaders relocating to states like Texas and Tennessee, often citing more favorable conditions for business and family life. In-N-Outs East Coast fans may have to keep waitingbut for Tennessee burger lovers, the wait is almost over.

The city is seeking up to $2,500 per violation

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Lawsuit accuses Airbnb of violating Californias anti-gouging law by raising rental prices after January wildfires

• Company also allegedly misled users with false claims about verifying host identities and property locations

• City seeks restitution for renters, a permanent injunction, and civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation

Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto's office has filed a civil enforcement action against Airbnb, accusing the short-term rental giant of price gouging and deceptive business practices in the wake of the devastating January wildfires in the Pacific Palisades and Altadena.

The lawsuit alleges that Airbnb illegally inflated rental prices on at least 2,000 and possibly over 3,000 properties across Los Angeles after Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency on January 7, 2025. Under Californias Anti-Gouging Law (Penal Code section 396), it is unlawful to raise prices on essential goods and services, including rental housing, by more than 10% during a declared emergency.

Despite repeated extensions of the emergency order by Governor Newsom, Mayor Karen Bass, and the LA County Board of Supervisors most recently on June 24 the lawsuit contends that Airbnb continued to allow unlawful price hikes on its platform.

Its unconscionable that Airbnb permitted prices to be jacked up on thousands of rental properties at a time when so many people lost so much and needed a place to sleep, said Feldstein Soto. Although Airbnb subsequently took steps to curtail price gouging, evidence indicates that illegal gouging on the site continues and may be ongoing.

Deceptive advertising also alleged

In addition to price gouging, the City Attorneys lawsuit charges Airbnb with deceptive advertising, claiming the company misrepresents that it has verified both the identities of its hosts and the locations of listed properties. The complaint asserts that some so-called verified hosts use false or non-existent identities, and that some properties are inaccurately or fraudulently located.

The lawsuit, filed under Californias Unfair Competition Law, seeks several remedies, including:

• A permanent injunction barring Airbnb from charging unlawful rental rates during the state of emergency

• A ban on false or misleading claims about host verification and property locations

• Restitution to consumers who were charged inflated prices

• Civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation

The January wildfires created a surge in demand for short-term rentals as hundreds, possibly thousands, of displaced residents sought emergency housing. Airbnb, with an estimated 80% market share in Los Angeles and $11.1 billion in revenue in 2024, became a critical player in that market.

According to the lawsuit, Airbnb has long been aware that its verification processes are inadequate. Yet the company allegedly continues to advertise a false sense of security to prospective renters. The complaint notes that Airbnb tenants have reported falling victim to serious crimes including identity theft, robbery, sexual assault, voyeurism, and other security breaches linked to misleading host or location information.

City officials say the case sends a message to all businesses operating in disaster-affected regions: profiteering and deception will be met with swift legal action.

New research reveals that the problem of household clutter is more complex than we think

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Consumers are battling two types of disordermessiness and overabundancebut often mistake one for the other.

• The way we view our stuffthrough either a possessive or post-materialist lensshapes how (and if) we ever regain control.

• Decluttering efforts often fail because consumers misdiagnose the problem, applying the wrong strategy to the wrong kind of disorder.

Im not proud of this"

A new academic study dives deep into the personal turmoil and social contradictions faced by consumers tryingand often failingto control clutter in their homes. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic research with relatively affluent individuals in Switzerland and Germany, the researchers argue that most homes are simultaneously fighting not one, but two material disorders: untidiness (disorder of placement) and clutteredness (disorder of quantity).

Yet consumers, social media influencers, and even decluttering experts routinely collapse the two, leaving people stuck in a frustrating cycle of tidying up without ever solving the real problem.

Material disorder is easy to see but hard to fix, the authors note. Thats because we focus on the wrong kind of mess.

The study appears in the August 2025 Journal of Consumer Research, published by Oxford University.

Two lenses, two problems

To explain why clutter persists, the researchers introduce two powerful conceptual frameworks:

• The Possessive Materialist Lens views possessions as extensions of the self. Disorder, in this view, is about misplaced objectssolved through tidying, categorizing, and finding a right place for everything. Think: color-coded bookshelves, storage bins, and home organization hacks.

• The Post-Materialist Lens sees clutter as an overabundance that oppresses rather than empowers. Here, disorder isnt about where stuff isits about how much of it there is. The solution isnt tidying, but purging.

Both lenses are valid, the study findsbut dangerously incomplete when applied in isolation. A home may be perfectly tidy but feel suffocatingly full. Or it may be sparse in quantity but visually chaotic.

Clutter returns

The findings explain why millions of consumers turn to social media, self-help books, and Netflix shows like Tidying Up with Marie Kondo, yet still feel defeated. Misdiagnosis is the core issue: we try to declutter when we should be tidying, or tidy when we should be letting go.

Popular advice also stacks the odds against consumers. For instance, Kondos brand promises transformation through tidying, even though her process often requires significant disposal. The confusion creates what the authors call a conceptual messone that mirrors the physical mess in many homes.

Understandingdisorder

The studys key contribution is a redefinition of clutter as pluralnot one disorder, but several, often overlapping. By distinguishing between disorder-as-untidiness and disorder-as-clutteredness, consumers can better target their efforts and win back control of their spaces.

What weve done in the past isnt working, one frustrated Facebook user says. This study suggests theyre rightnot because they lack discipline, but because the problem has been misframed.

To truly clear the clutter, consumers must ask not just Where does this go? but Should this even be here? Only by viewing disorder through both lenses can we stop our possessions from possessing us.

Check to see if any of your items are included

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a slate of product recalls covering a wide range of consumer items due to fire, burn, and injury hazards. Consumers are urged to check their products and follow the manufacturers guidance to prevent serious risks.

VIVI E-Bike Batteries Recalled Over Fire Hazard

Hazard: Certain 36-volt lithium-ion batteries included with VIVI brand e-bikes can overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.

Scope: About 24,000 batteries are affected, sold between December 2020 and November 2023 through online retailers including Amazon, Walmart, and Wayfair.

Incidents: 14 reports of overheating, including three fires; no injuries reported.

Remedy: Consumers should stop using the affected batteries and contact VIVI for a free replacement battery and charger. Proof of hazardous waste disposal is required.

Contact: viviebikes.com/pages/recall or 800-375-6103.

Babyletto Kiwi Recliners Recalled for Overheating USB Modules

Hazard: USB charging ports embedded in the armrests of certain Babyletto Kiwi Electronic Recliners can overheat and spark.

Scope: About 9,030 units sold between May 2023 and February 2025.

Incidents: 37 overheating incidents reported; one minor injury. No fires or property damage.

Remedy: Babyletto is offering a free repair kit with instructions.

Contact: babylettorecall.com or 866-621-9483.

iStore Wireless Power Banks Pose Fire Risk

Hazard: iStore Magnetic Wireless Power Banks (Model IST-09991/W05) can overheat and ignite while charging.

Scope: Approximately 8,520 units in the U.S. and another 6,400 in Canada sold from February 2023 to May 2025.

Incidents: Three overheating/explosion reports, including one minor burn and property damage totaling $15,000.

Remedy: Consumers should submit photographic proof and dispose of the unit per hazardous waste regulations. Refunds will be issued.

Contact: istore.co/pages/battery-recall or 800-268-4049.

CasaClean Steamers Recalled for Burn Risk

Hazard: CasaClean handheld steamers can spew hot water or steam, risking serious burns.

Scope: About 23,000 units sold via HSN from November 2024 through April 2025.

Incidents: 26 reports, including 13 burns.

Remedy: Consumers must cut the steamer's power cord and submit proof to receive a refund.

Contact: thedeale.com/pages/casaclean-safety-recall or 877-880-6137.

Primark Highlighters Violate Federal Chemical Standards

Hazard: Primarks DTR Stitch Scented Highlighters contain phthalates, a toxic chemical banned in childrens products.

Scope: About 2,600 four-packs sold in select U.S. stores between May 2024 and May 2025.

Remedy: Return to a Primark store for a full refund.

Contact: primark.com/recall or 617-946-3236.

Traveller Truck Ramps Pose Fall Hazard

Hazard: Traveller-brand aluminum loading ramps may break under rated loads, risking falls and injury.

Scope: About 18,000 units sold from October 2024 through July 2025.

Incidents: 35 reports of ramps bending or breaking, including two injury cases.

Remedy: Refunds are available via return or submission of a photo marked Recalled.

Contact: tractorsupply.com or 877-718-6750.

Safety Reminder

Consumers are strongly advised not to dispose of recalled lithium-ion batteries in general trash or curbside recycling bins. These must be taken to a household hazardous waste (HHW) facility or handled in accordance with local disposal guidance.

To stay up to date, visit the CPSC recalls portal regularly.

The student loan company was accused of violating consumer protection laws

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Earnest Operations LLC agrees to pay $2.5 million and reform lending practices.

• Massachusetts AG alleges AI-driven loan decisions harmed Black, Hispanic, and non-citizen applicants.

• Settlement mandates compliance measures and bans discriminatory algorithmic rules.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell has secured a $2.5 million settlement with Earnest Operations LLC, a Delaware-based student loan company, over allegations that its lending practices driven by artificial intelligence (AI) discriminated against marginalized borrowers and violated consumer protection and fair lending laws.

The settlement, filed in Suffolk County Superior Court as an assurance of discontinuance, addresses what the AGs office described as systemic failures in Earnests underwriting process, including the use of AI models that allegedly produced disparate impacts on Black, Hispanic, and non-citizen borrowers.

AI models under scrutiny

According to the Attorney Generals investigation, Earnest used algorithmic models to make critical decisions about loan eligibility, pricing, and terms. However, the company failed to test for discriminatory outcomes and relied on data inputs and training methods that introduced bias amplifying existing inequities in the lending process.

Earnests failure to comply with consumer protection and fair lending laws, including through its AI models, unfairly put historically marginalized student borrowers at risk of being denied loans or receiving unfavorable loan terms, AG Campbell said in a statement.

One key point of contention was the companys use of the federal Cohort Default Rate (CDR) a statistic reflecting average loan defaults at individual schools as an input variable in its algorithms. The AGs office said this disproportionately penalized applicants who attended minority-serving institutions, including historically Black colleges and universities.

Other alleged violations

In addition to algorithmic bias, the AG alleged other unfair practices:

• Use of a Knockout Rule to automatically deny loans based on immigration status.

• Arbitrary human assessments that led to inconsistent and opaque decisions.

• Inaccurate adverse action notices that misinformed applicants about credit decisions.

• A lack of internal compliance infrastructure to oversee fair lending risks.

Earnest denied all allegations and maintained that it did not violate state or federal law. The company said it agreed to the settlement solely to resolve the matter without prolonged litigation.

Reforms mandated in settlement

Under the terms of the agreement, Earnest must:

• Pay $2.5 million to the state of Massachusetts.

• Cease use of the Cohort Default Rate and immigration-based Knockout Rule in its loan decision models.

• Establish a robust corporate governance structure to monitor AI use.

• Develop written policies for responsible, legally compliant AI deployment.

• Regularly report compliance metrics to the AGs office.

The settlement marks one of the first state-level enforcement actions targeting AI-related bias in financial services, setting a precedent for how regulators may respond to emerging technologies that impact consumer rights.

This case sends a strong message, Campbell said, that technology, no matter how advanced, cannot be used as an excuse to sidestep civil rights and consumer protections.