Starbucks Pickup locations account for most of the closures

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Starbucks plans to close or convert dozens of its pickup-only stores in North America.

• The closures are part of a sweeping $1 billion restructuring effort, which also includes cutting around 900 non-retail (corporate/support) jobs.

• The company cites weak financial performance at certain stores, rising costs, and a strategic shift toward more efficient formats as driving factors.

Starbucks has announced plans to shutter or reconfigure a number of its locations across North America, marking one of the most aggressive store-restructuring moves in its recent history. The changes, concentrated among the brands mobile-order and pickup-only outlets, come alongside deep cuts to its corporate workforce as part of a broader turnaround strategy.

While Starbucks has not disclosed an exact total, company statements and media reports suggest that between 80 and 90 Starbucks Pickup locations stores built for app-based ordering without seating will either close or be converted into full coffeehouse formats by 2026.

These closures are expected to reduce Starbuckss U.S. and Canadian store count by about 1% in fiscal 2025, even as some new stores opened earlier in the year offset the drop.

At the same time, Starbucks will eliminate approximately 900 corporate, support, and administrative roles, primarily affecting non-store operations. The total cost of the restructuring including severance, lease termination, and other write-downs is estimated at about $1 billion.

Why Starbucks is pulling back

Stores targeted are underperforming locations, the company explained. But the move may also suggest that Starbucks plans to return to its coffee house roots.

Company management said the underperforming stores are those where we dont see a path to financial performance or where the physical layout and customer flow do not match the brands expectations.

In many cases, pickup-only stores, designed for swift app-based orders and no seating, failed to build the warmth and human connection Starbucks considers core to its identity.

Cost pressures

The company is under pressure from rising labor, real estate, and supply chain costs. Many full cafes require higher overhead, with larger footprints, more staff, utilities, and maintenance. Those costs can become untenable, especially when foot traffic is inconsistent.

Starbucks has faced six consecutive quarters of declining same-store sales, signaling weakening demand in many markets. At the same time, consumer habits have shifted: mobile ordering, drive-thrus, and convenience-based formats are growing in prominence.

The closures reflect what Starbucks describes as portfolio optimization. Rather than blanket cuts, the company aims to prune weaker locations and redirect resources toward formats expected to drive higher returns and scale: drive-thru stores, enhanced cafs, and digitally integrated designs.

Starbucks said some of the shuttered pickup-only stores will be converted into full cafs with seating, while others will close outright.

Credit ratings affect every aspect of modern life and a default is extremely damaging to employment prospects

Whether it's the pandemic or a weak job market or poorly conceived political protests, student loan collections are way down.Roughly a third of student loan borrowersthat's about 5.4 million people are behind in their payments. The amount in question comes to about $1.7 trillion, just slightly down from the record reached in April.

The most immediate result of the missed payments is massive damage to the borrowers' credit ratings. It's easy to say you don't care about your credit rating because you're not going to be buying a house anytime soon but credit ratings affect just about everything, including job prospects.

Some states prohibit employers from looking at applicants' credit scores but, realistically, once data exists, it is likely to find its way to anyone willing to pay for it. Many students and former students say they can't pay because they don't have a job but with employers checking scores, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There may be a touch of over-confidence at play here. For several years during the pandemic, the government granted forbearance, meaning borrowers could take a break from payments. But those days are over and the Education Department has restarted collection efforts.

TransUnion, one of the big three credit bureaus, reports that prior to the pandemic, only about 12% of loan recipients were delinquent. Now the figure is 29% and collection pressures are growing. That's a lot of consumers whose credit ratings are in the tank. A serious loan delinquency can drag a credit score down by as much as 60 points or more. Those who had a super-high score can lose as much as 170 points, according to anecdotal reports.

Tax refunds at risk

Many people who have fallen on hard timeslaid-off federal workers, for examplemay be hoping their income tax refund next year will help them get back on track. Maybe so, but it may not be voluntary. Collection officials say that when a loan is more than 270 days overdue, it goes into default status, which kicks off involuntary collection activity. That means wage garnishments and seizure of tax refunds, with added penalties and interest that might be avoided if the loan is paid off before tax time.

Many borrowers say they are prioritizing their debt service, paying mortgages and car payments first and putting student loan payments somewhere farther down the list. Financial advisors say this is a bad idea and can cause many more problems than borrowers may realize. Bankruptcy, the last resort when finances collapse, isn't an option for student loans, which are federally guaranteed and therefore immune from bankruptcy rules. It may not be fair, but that's the law.

What to do

The consensus among financial advisors is that a student loan defaultis akin to your house being on fire. It's an emergency and requires that you drop everything else and take immediate action. Some people think that not paying can be an effective political protest but it can also be a personal disaster that you never recover from. Here are some key steps for consumers who are in default or about to go into default on their student loans:

Contact Your Loan Servicer Right Away: If your student loan payment is one day late, your account is delinquent. If it stays delinquent, it will go into default. To prevent default, contact your loan servicer right away. This is the single most important step - don't wait or ignore the problem.

Explore Temporary Relief Options: Before default occurs, borrowers can request deferment or forbearance. Under certain conditions, you can receive a deferment or forbearance on your federal loans, as long as the loan is not in default. However, receiving a forbearance is not automatic. The borrower has to contact the loan servicer to request a forbearance.

Available relief programs

Deferment: A deferment allows you to temporarily stop making payments on your federal student loans. If you have Direct Subsidized Loans, you are not charged interest during deferment periods.

Forbearance: Forbearance tends to be more broadly available than deferment. Currently, borrowers have over 30 forbearance options. These include general forbearances for financial hardship that can last up to 12 months initially and up to three years cumulatively.

Professional guidance

Financial advisors emphasize getting proper guidance rather than relying solely on loan servicers. Your Financial Advisor can work with your tax advisor to evaluate if any loan forgiveness you receive would be taxable. While your loan servicer is an important point of contact, understand that they are serving as your loan institution's advocate, not yours.

Emergency contacts

For immediate help, borrowers can contact the U.S. Department of Education at 1-800-621-3115, and there are free resources available through organizations like TISLA (The Institute of Student Loan Advisors) for no-cost guidance.

The overarching message from financial experts is: act quickly, communicate with your servicer, explore all available relief options, and seek independent advice to understand your full range of options before default occurs.

Shrimp from different distributors have tested positive for radioactivity

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Over the past four weeks, multiple frozen shrimp brands have been recalled in the U.S. over fears of radioactive contamination (Cesium-137).

• A prior recall earlier this summer targeted ready-to-eat shrimp meat over possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.

• Regulators cite cross-contamination in shipping containers, failure of detection at ports, and potentially unsafe handling or processing conditions as the key causes behind the surge of recalls.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has reported yet another recall of frozen shrimp for possible radioactive isotope contamination. Southwind Foods, LLC is recalling a limited quantity of frozen shrimp, due to possible radionuclide (Cesium-137) contamination.

Cs-137 is a manmade radioisotope of cesium. Traces of Cs-137 are widespread and can be present in the environment at background levels, and at higher levels in water or foods grown, raised, or produced in areas with environmental contamination.

Its just the latest in a series of recalls for the same reason. Heres a breakdown of the major recall events over roughly the past month:

1. Walmart / Great Value (August 2025)

In mid-August, the FDA prompted a recall of certain Great Value brand frozen raw shrimp sold at Walmart in 13 states after detecting Cesium-137 in a container and a sample of shrimp imported from Indonesia (via the supplier PT. Bahari Makmur Sejati, or BMS Foods).
Though the detected levels were well below the FDAs derived intervention level, the agency moved to pull all suspect lots and block additional imports from BMS Foods.

2. Southwind Foods Recall (Late August)

Shortly after the Walmart action, Southwind Foods, LLC recalled frozen shrimp sold under multiple labels (Sand Bar, Arctic Shores, Best Yet, Great American, First Street). The recall covered shrimp distributed between July 17 and August 8 across states including Alabama, Arizona, California, Virginia, and others.
The stated reason: possible Cs-137 contamination tied to BMS Foods processing.

3. AquaStar / Kroger / Additional Retailers (Late August Early September)

The FDA expanded the shrimp recall to cover more brands and retailers, including AquaStar products and Kroger-affiliated shrimp packages. In one notice, 18,000 bags of Kroger Mercado Cooked Medium Peeled Tail-Off Shrimp and 26,460 packages of cocktail shrimp were flagged.

4. Latest Expansion & Kroger-Brand Shrimp (September)

Most recently, recalls were extended further to include Kroger-brand shrimp (including cooked and frozen shrimp sold under Kroger, Mercado, and Aquastar brand names) across more than 30 states.

A Seattle seafood distributor (Aquastar Corp.) recalled nearly 157,000 pounds of cooked/frozen shrimp sold in Kroger stores nationwide, citing possible radioactive contamination.

5. Listeria Recall (Earlier but still relevant)

Separately, earlier this summer, Bornstein Seafoods recalled about 44,550 pounds of ready-to-eat coldwater shrimp meat due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination discovered in a processing sample.

While that recall is older than four weeks, its an important precedent for how bacterial contamination still matters in shrimp supply chains.

Why so many recalls, and why now?

The clustering of frozen shrimp recalls over recent weeks reflects a confluence of supply chain complexity, detection gaps, and unusual contamination risks. Below is an analysis of the main factors driving this wave.

A. Radioactive Contamination: a rare but high-profile risk

• The central trigger has been detection of Cesium-137 (Cs-137), a man-made radioactive isotope.

• In one intercepted shipment, inspectors found ~68 becquerels per kilogram in shrimp from BMS Foodswell below the FDAs intervention threshold of ~1,200 Bq/kgbut still a red flag for potential long-term exposure.

• The presence of Cs-137 in shrimp is highly unusual, which has led regulators to suspect that contamination may have arisen from industrial scrap, recycled metal, or radioactive materials improperly handled near processing or shipping sites.

• Because the contamination may occur in shipping containers (not inherent to the shrimp), products that initially passed port checks may later be flagged as suspect as investigations deepen.

B. Complexity & opacity of seafood supply chains

• Many shrimp consumed in the U.S. are farmed or processed overseas and pass through multiple handling stagescatching, transport, processing, freezing, containerization, shipping, then domestic distribution. Each step is a potential point of contamination or oversight failure.

• Traceability is difficult: impacted shrimp have shown up under many brand names across multiple retailers.

• Detection systems at ports or during import inspections may not always catch low-level contamination or intermittent hot spots unless theyre extremely stringent.

C. Precautionary recalls andregulatory caution

• Because radioactivityeven at low levelscarries long-term risks (e.g. elevated cancer risk over prolonged exposure), regulators tend to err on the side of caution in food products, especially when the contamination vector is uncertain.

• Some shrimp batches that did not test positive were still recalled or pulled from shelves, because they came from the same supplier (BMS Foods) or shared shipping routes/containers that triggered suspicion.

• The FDA has placed BMS Foods on an import alert to block further shrimp from that firm until it resolves the contamination issue.

D. Preexisting microbial risks still relevant

• The earlier Bornstein recall shows that bacterial contamination (Listeria) remains a genuine risk in shrimp processing.

• Shrimp, like many seafoods, is vulnerable to cross-contamination, temperature abuse, and sanitation failuresespecially in ready-to-eat or cooked shrimp lines.

What it means for consumers

If you have frozen shrimp in your freezer, the FDA said you should check lot numbers and brand names against recall alerts from the FDA or your retailer, especially for Kroger-brand, Great Value, Sand Bar, Arctic Shores, Best Yet, First Street, and others that have been recalled. Do not consume or serve shrimp under recall. Return it or dispose of it as instructed by the retailer or the FDA.

Fortunately, no illnesses have been connected to the recalled shrimp, but the FDA warns that repeated long-term exposure to low levels of Cs-137 is considered undesirable.

Unfortunately, so did prices

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• New home sales in August 2025 surged 20.5% from July, reaching 800,000 units at a seasonally adjusted annual rate.

• Median sales price climbed to $413,500, while the average sales price soared 11.7% to $534,100.

• Inventory tightened to 7.4 months of supply, down sharply from Julys 9.0 months.

Sales of new single-family homes jumped sharply in August, signaling renewed momentum in the housing market after months of uneven activity.

According to a joint report released by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, new home sales rose to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 800,000 units, a 20.5% increase from Julys revised figure of 664,000. Compared to a year earlier, sales were up 15.4%.

The number of new houses available for sale at the end of August was estimated at 490,000, representing a modest 1.4% decline from July but still 4% higher than one year ago. At the current pace of sales, this inventory translates to 7.4 months of supply, a significant drop from Julys 9.0 months and below August 2024s 8.2 months. Lower supply typically reflects stronger demand and can put additional upward pressure on prices.

Prices continue to rise

Rising sales put upward pressure on prices. The median sales price of new homes sold in August was $413,500, a 4.7% increase from July and a slight 1.9% rise compared to the same month last year. The average sales price saw an even steeper climb, reaching $534,100, up 11.7% month over month and 12.3% year over year.

Economists note that while the month-to-month jump in sales is impressive, the figures come with wide margins of error, meaning revisions in the months ahead are possible. Still, the combination of stronger sales, declining months supply, and rising prices points to sustained buyer interest even amid affordability challenges in many markets.

The bank misled online savings customers and cost them billions

• New Yorks attorney general leads coalition opposing Capital One class action settlement

• Officials say deal would return pennies on the dollar while letting the bank keep $2 billion

• Settlement criticized for failing to stop deceptive practices in savings accounts

New York Attorney General Letitia James is leading a bipartisan coalition of 17 other state attorneys general in opposing a proposed class action settlement with Capital One, arguing it would cheat customers out of billions in unpaid interest and shield the bank from accountability.

James sued Capital One in May, alleging the bank misled online savings customers by keeping interest rates on its 360 Savings accounts artificially low while advertising them as high interest products. As rates rose nationwide in 2022, Capital One instead created nearly identical 360 Performance Savings accounts that paid far higher yields at one point more than 14 times higher while continuing to underpay 360 Savings customers.

Critics: Settlement favors Capital One

In an amicus brief filed Tuesday, James and her counterparts said the proposed settlement in a separate class action case shortchanges consumers and benefits Capital One at their expense. The deal would deliver $125 million in extra interest to current 360 Savings customers, but the coalition argues that is a fraction of what they are owed.

By comparison, the attorneys general say Capital One has withheld more than $2 billion in interest. The average consumer lost out on about $717 but would receive less than $54 under the settlement.

Capital One customers worked hard for their savings, only to be misled and cheated out of billions of dollars, James said. Now, Capital One is pushing a settlement agreement that would let it off the hook. We are opposing this unfair settlement so we can truly hold Capital One accountable.

Great heres a sidebar/graphic explainer you could run alongside the main story:

What Capital One customers lost vs. what the settlement pays

Unpaid interest at stake:

• More than $2 billion in interest Capital One allegedly withheld from 360 Savings customers

Average customer loss:

• About $717 in missed interest

Settlement payout:

• $125 million total in additional interest

• Less than $54 per customer on average

Comparison:

• In the time it would take to pay out $125 million, Capital One would have owed $800 million at its higher 360 Performance Savings rate

Key criticism:

• Settlement does not require Capital One to raise 360 Savings rates, meaning underpayments could continue

Push for stronger restitution

The attorneys general also criticized the deal for failing to require Capital One to stop paying 360 Savings customers below-market rates while continuing to market the accounts as high-interest. Without structural changes, they warned, the scheme at the center of both lawsuits would persist.

Capital One has argued the settlement should prevent James office from pursuing its separate enforcement case. The coalition urged the court to reject both the settlement and any attempt to use it to block state-level restitution efforts.

Attorneys general from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio and 13 other states joined James in filing the brief.