Consumer advocates warn the rollback could leave households exposed to predatory practices

• Nearly all pending compliance issues flagged by CFPB examiners are being closed without verification.

• Mass layoffs and budget cuts threaten the agencys ability to police banks and finance companies.

• Consumer advocates warn the rollback could leave households exposed to predatory practices.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is closing out almost every unresolved compliance problem identified by its examiners, a dramatic shift that consumer advocates say could leave Americans more vulnerable to financial abuse.

The agency, created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to police banks, credit card companies, and lenders, had roughly 2,000 open matters requiring attention (MRAs) as recently as June. These MRAs are formal notices to companies of potential compliance violations that must typically be corrected and verified by examiners. But under a process insiders have dubbed death memos, as many as 99% of those cases are now being swept awayoften without confirming whether the problems were ever fixed, Bloomberg News reported.

That means consumers harmed by hidden fees, illegal debt collection practices, or discriminatory lending could see their complaints vanish into the ether. Traditionally, MRAs can require companies to pay restitution to customers and overhaul internal policies. By closing them en masse, the CFPB is effectively taking companies at their wordor, in some cases, granting closures based on little more than requests from the firms themselves.

90% likely to go

The move comes as Trump-appointed leaders prepare to fire nearly 90% of the agencys workforce after a federal appeals court cleared the way for mass layoffs. Coupled with a budget cap signed into law on July 4 that cuts the bureaus Federal Reserve funding transfers in half, the CFPBs exam and enforcement capacity faces its steepest retrenchment since the agencys founding. Even if layoffs are slowed by litigation, the cuts mean the CFPB cannot realistically maintain a broad supervision program.

For consumers, the implications are stark. The bureau has long been the main "cop on the beat" for problems like payday loan rollovers, abusive debt collection, or deceptive credit card practices. Without meaningful exam work, advocates warn, many violations will never be caughtleaving households to fend for themselves or wait until damage is widespread enough to spark a rare enforcement action.

The system is moving in one direction onlytoward closing cases, said one person familiar with the changes. That one-way process, they added, makes it far less likely that banks or lenders will face consequences for noncompliance.

The agency is also shrinking the scope of companies it supervises, beginning a rulemaking this month to exclude major auto lenders, credit bureaus, and money transfer companies from oversight. For consumers, that means some of the industries with the highest rates of disputes could soon operate with far less scrutiny.

Previous victories reversed

Besides winding down its operations and disposing of pending cases, the CFPB has actually been reversing previous victories and returning fines and penalties. In three recent cases,the CFPB withdrew from settlements that would have delivered more than $120 million in redress to affected consumers. In each of those cases, the companies were explicitly relieved of any obligation to pay restitution. In a fourth case, the financial penalty was dramatically reduced with little explanation.

Aninvestigationby the Consumer Federation of America earlier this month found that morethan $360 million in compensation owed to Americans harmed by illegal financial practices is at risk.It foundthat over $120 million in redress has already been clawed back from victims and returned to the same corporations found to have broken the law. Additionally, hundreds of millions more remain in limbo or face cancellation as the CFPB under acting director Russell Vought has rolled back enforcement and reduced transparency.

In case after case, the Trump CFPB has taken the side of Wall Street over working families, said Eric Halperin, senior fellow at CFA. The agencys job is to protect Americansnot to offer a laundry list of corporate pardons.

Lunch staples are down 3.34%, supplies down 7.05%

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The cost of popular school lunch items is down 3.34% year-over-year, led by Oat & Honey granola bars (-20.1%) and applesauce cups (-5.1%), though some items like mozzarella string cheese (+2.4%) and fruit snacks (+1.4%) rose slightly.

• Prices for 15 common items are down 7.05% from 2024, with construction paper (-51.6%), broadline markers (-23.8%), and fine line markers (-12.3%) showing the steepest drops.

• While some supplies (like notebooks and folders) stayed flat, others climbedmost notably dry erase markers (+20.6%), kids scissors (+3.7%), and washable glue (+11.8%).

Families continue to struggle with the cost of living, but a new report from Datasembly, which tracks prices in real time, finds that some back-to-school costs are going down.

According to the data, the total cost of popular school lunch staples has fallen 3.34%, year-over-year. The biggest decline is the price of a 5-bar package of Oat & Honey granola bars, which is down more than 20% from 2024.

But pretzel twists, white bread, mayo, fruit snacks and mozzarella cheese all cost slightly more.

Heres the breakdown:

School supplies

Families are also catching a break when they stock up on school supplies. The report shows the total cost of 15 items usually found in kids backpacks is down 7.05% from last year.

Three items are down by double-digit percentages. Construction paper is down the most more than 50%.

The costs of a college notebook, a 4-pocket paper folder and 150 sheets of wide-ruled paper are the same as last year. Hand sanitizer, kids' scissors, a 12-inch ruler, washable glue and dry markers have all increased in price since last year. The price of markers recorded the largest increase, 20.6%.

Heres the breakdown:

In 2024, lunch box staples saw a modest 1.16% increase while school supplies saw prices rise 3.6% over the prior year.

Researchers look at how pushing harder on blood-pressure goals could save lives and still make sense for your wallet

• Intensive blood-pressure control (below 120 mm Hg) prevents more heart-related events than standard targets, even when real-world measurement quirks are considered.

• The study shows this aggressive approach is cost-effective with roughly $42,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

• However, this approach also comes with added risks like falls or kidney issues and increases medication use and clinic visits, so its not a one-size-fits-all answer.

High blood pressure is a serious health hallmark linked to heart attacks, strokes, and heart failure.

Until recently, aiming for systolic pressure under 130 or even 140 mm Hg has been standard. However, new research from Mass General Brigham suggests that aiming lower below 120 mm Hg is not only more protective but also a smart investment in your health.

Our findings suggest the intensive said in a news release.

The study

The researchers used a simulation model combining data from trusted sources like the SPRINT clinical trial and nationwide surveys, plus other published findings. They looked at three blood-pressure targets: under 140, under 130, and under 120 mm Hg.

Their model also accounted for the fact that in everyday clinical settings, blood-pressure readings arent always perfect they included typical measurement error.

The simulation estimated long-term health outcomes, such as heart attacks, strokes, and heart failure, and balanced those against adverse events from treatment (like falls, kidney damage, low blood pressure, and slow heart rate), plus the added costs of more medications and clinic visits.

The results

Even with real-world blips in measurement, targeting under 120 mm Hg prevented more cardiovascular events than the 130 mm Hg goal.

Additionally, when researchers crunched the numbers, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year was about $42,000. In the U.S. health care world, thats seen as cost-effective.

This study should give patients at high cardiovascular risk and their clinicians more confidence in pursuing an intensive blood pressure goal, Dr. Smith said in the news release.

While these findings are positive, the researchers also found that these lower blood pressure targets led to an increased health care spending due to more frequent doctors visits, as well as a higher risk of adverse events related to blood pressure treatment, such as falls, kidney injury, hypotension, and bradycardia.

Finding the right candidates

The researchers explain that its up to doctors to determine which patients are ideal candidates for these stricter blood pressure regulations.

Our results examine the cost-effectiveness of intensive treatment at the population level, Dr. Smith said. However, given the additional risk of adverse events related to antihypertensives, intensive treatment will not be optimal for all patients. Patients and clinicians should work together to determine the appropriate medication intensity based on patient preferences.

Crashes involving Autopilot may have been reported late or bundled with other reports

• NHTSA investigating whether Tesla delayed reporting crashes involving Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.

• Probe marks first Tesla safety investigation since Donald Trumps return to the White House.

• Investors had expected Trump era to ease scrutiny, but tensions with Elon Musk may change that.

Federal safety regulators have opened a new investigation into Tesla over whether the company failed to promptly report crashes involving its driver-assistance technology.

In a federal filing released Wednesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said Tesla may have violated reporting requirements that mandate automakers disclose crash data within days of an incident. Regulators found numerous incident reports in which Tesla submitted information months late, often in bulk filings rather than on a rolling basis.

The inquiry zeroes in on Teslas Autopilot system and its so-called Full Self Driving technology, which are designed to assist motorists but still require an attentive driver behind the wheel. While NHTSA has launched multiple safety probes into Tesla vehicles in recent years, this marks the first such action since President Trump returned to office.

Political context

The timing underscores the shifting political context surrounding Teslas autonomous driving ambitions. Musk, once a close Trump ally and major donor, has since fallen out with the president. Investors had expected Trumps administration to curtail or even end federal safety investigations into Tesla, potentially accelerating Musks self-driving push. Instead, the new probe signals heightened scrutiny.

Tesla told regulators it has since corrected problems with its reporting system, but NHTSA said it will audit the companys data to confirm. Weve heard from industry partners that crash reporting requirements for automated vehicles is way too expensive, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said earlier this year. But these reports help DOT monitor road safety. So to balance these concerns, weve streamlined the process.

The investigation comes just weeks after a jury found Tesla liable in a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, ordering the company to pay $329 million in damages. Tesla has vowed to appeal.