An expert shares everything consumers need to know to protect themselves during the sales

• have gone hand-in-hand with big shopping holidays and the upcoming Labor Day weekend is no exception.
• The same rules for identifying potential remain: a sense of urgency, misspellings, grammatical errors, etc. should all raise alarm bells for consumers.
• Experts encourage consumers to trust their instincts and never be scared to double and triple check before making purchases or sharing personal information.

While many consumers are preparing for barbecues and sales for Labor Day weekend, its also becoming increasingly common for scammers to up the ante during high-volume sales.

Clayton LiaBraaten, Senior Executive Advisor at Truecaller, spoke with ConsumerAffairs to highlight the most popular Labor Day , what consumers should expect, how to avoid falling victim to these , and more.

Labor Day weekend carries with it a peculiar duality, LiaBraaten told ConsumerAffairs.

On one hand, it represents the unofficial end of summer, that bittersweet transition when we collectively acknowledge the turning of seasons and the promise of autumn's arrival. On the other hand, it has become something far more insidious a golden opportunity for those who would exploit our very human tendencies toward optimism and the hunt for a good deal.

Identify the red flags

LiaBraaten warns that scammers are using the latest technology to their advantage, making harder and harder to detect. However, its not impossible to spot a sale-related scam.

The price that seems too good to be true invariably is. That brand-new television at 90% off isn't a doorbuster deal; it's bait, he explained. The URL that contains subtle misspellings or unnecessary additions Bestbuysales.com instead of BestBuy.com betrays the deception beneath the surface. These are not accidents or oversights; they're the unavoidable artifacts of fraudulent infrastructure.

The poorly designed website with missing contact information and grammatical inconsistencies remains a reliable indicator, LiaBraaten continued. Legitimate businesses don't operate from the shadows. They have addresses, phone numbers, return policies, and customer service departments. They exist in the physical world as well as the digital one.

A sense of urgency is a warning sign

One of the biggest things to look for: a sense of urgency.

The high-pressure tactics remain their bread and butter, unchanged despite technological evolution, LiaBraaten said. Requests for Social Security numbers, passwords, or payment details via email or text. Insistence on wire transfers or cryptocurrency payments.

The creation of false urgency act now or lose this opportunity forever. No legitimate retailer operates this way, yet in the heat of the moment, with the clock ticking and the deal seemingly slipping away, we can forget these fundamental truths.

Go to the source

If youre ever unsure if youre being targeted by a scammer, LiaBraatens best piece of advice: go straight to the source.

Those links in unsolicited emails and social media advertisements? Ignore them entirely. Type the retailer's URL directly into your browser, he said. If you've placed an order, log into your account through the official website and check your order status there. This simple practice alone would prevent the vast majority of successful phishing attempts.

Look for "https" rather than merely "http" that 's' represents secure encryption, and its absence should raise immediate red flags. Verify the actual domain name with the care of a proofreader. Amazon.com is legitimate; amazom.com is not. These differences can be subtle, but they're never accidental.

Trust your instincts

At the end of the day, LiaBraaten recommends that consumers trust their guts above all else.

That feeling in your gut when something seems off? It's the product of millions of years of evolution, finely tuned to detect threats, he said. In our digital age, those threats may have changed form, but our intuitive response to danger remains remarkably reliable.

This Labor Day weekend, as you navigate the sales and celebrations, remember that vigilance need not mean paranoia, and skepticism need not prevent participation. It simply means approaching our digital transactions with the same care we would bring to any significant decision. After all, in an age where artificial intelligence can mimic human communication with uncanny accuracy, our very human capacity for critical thinking becomes not just useful but essential.

Agents are not as enthused about making less money on a sale

• New nationwide research shows sellers who cut buyer-agent commissions risk slower or failed sales.

• Properties offering lower commissions were 51% less likely to sell and took a third longer on the market.

• A recent $418 million NAR settlement gives buyers new leverage to negotiate agent compensation.

A new study offers the first nationwide evidence that real estate agents steer buyers away from homes with lower commissions. Analyzing 265,000 listings across 30 U.S. markets between June 2021 and February 2022, researchers found homes with the lowest buyer-agent commissions were 51% less likely to sell and lingered 33% longer on the market compared with homes offering higher payouts.

The research from the University of Texas at Austins McCombs School of Businesshelps explain why U.S. real estate commissions average 5% to 6% of a homes sale pricewell above countries like the U.K., where fees are closer to 1.5% to 2%. Sellers are highly incentivized to go ahead and offer very high compensation to buyer agents, said finance professor John Hatfield, who co-authored the study. The data also showed homes with lower commissions drew fewer online views, signaling reduced buyer interest from the start.

Lower commissions, slower sales

Both anecdotes and localized studies have previously pointed to the existence of steering. But Hatfields study presents the first systematic, nationwide evidence.

Researchers analyzed 265,000 listings in 30 markets across the country. Dated from June 2021 to February 2022, the listings included commissions offered to buyers agents.

For each market, the researchers calculated the going commission rate. They then broke properties into four groups, depending on how they compared with the going rates. In Austin, for example, the going rate was 3% for buyers agents, while the lowest group was below 2%.

They found that the lower the commission, the harder it was to sell the house:

• Houses with the lowest commissions were 51% less likely to sell at all than those with commissions at the going rate.
• Nationwide, houses in the lowest group got 8% fewer page views on the real estate brokerage website Redfin than those in the highest group, with those in between getting 4% fewer views. Fewer views indicate less interest among buyers.
• The lowest group took 33% longer to sell than the highest group, while in-between houses took 15% to 17% longer.

Thats strong evidence of steering, theUniversity of Texas'John Hatfieldsays. A seller offering a lower commission rate to buyer agents should be prepared to see fewer potential buyers.

Buyers may gain leverage under settlement

The findings come as the National Association of Realtors in 2024 agreed to a $418 million settlement in an antitrust case that reshaped how buyer agents can be compensated. Under the new framework, buyers can negotiate directly with their agents about pay, potentially pushing costs down. Hatfield says buyers should consider written contracts specifying how much their agent earnsand even arrange rebates if sellers offer above-market commissions. Think of it like negotiating when youre buying a car, he said.

Google's Gemini was the most inconsistent, compared to ChatGPT and Claude

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• RAND researchers tested ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini with 30 suicide-related questions.

• Chatbots handled very-high- and very-low-risk questions more consistently than intermediate ones.

• Experts say refinements are needed to ensure safe, effective mental health guidance.

Three widely used artificial intelligence chatbots give uneven responses when asked about suicide, according to a new RAND Corporation study. While the tools generally managed questions at the highest and lowest levels of suicide risk, they faltered when faced with inquiries that fell into a middle range of risk.

The study, published in Psychiatric Services, evaluated ChatGPT by OpenAI, Claude by Anthropic, and Gemini by Google. Researchers posed 30 suicide-related questions to each chatbot 100 times and compared the responses with assessments made by expert clinicians.

Performance varied across platforms

Researchers found that ChatGPT and Claude typically responded appropriately to very-low-risk questionssuch as identifying the state with the highest suicide rateand avoided giving direct answers to very-high-risk questions, like those about methods of suicide. Geminis responses were more inconsistent, sometimes declining even low-risk questions.

Intermediate-level questions, such as recommendations for someone experiencing suicidal thoughts, were where all three systems struggled. At times they generated helpful responses, while in other instances they refused to answer.

Here was Claude's response to a ConsumerAffairs query:

Researchers call for refinement

This work demonstrates that chatbots are aligned with expert assessments for very-low-risk and very-high-risk questions, but there remains significant variability in responses to questions at intermediary levels and from one chatbot platform to another, said Ryan McBain, the studys lead author and a senior policy researcher at RAND.

McBain said the inconsistencies highlight the need for further refinementsuch as reinforcement learning guided by cliniciansto ensure large language models provide safe and effective mental health information.

We asked ChatGPT how AI engines should respond to queries about suicide. Here's its partial response:

Potential risks for vulnerable users

The findings add to concerns that AI-powered chatbots, now used by millions worldwide, may dispense harmful advice to people experiencing mental health crises. Prior cases have shown instances where chatbot interactions may have encouraged suicidal behavior.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Co-authors include researchers from RAND, the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, and the Brown University School of Public Health.

In the sample responses above, both Claude and ChatGPT got around to warning users to seek professional help but not until the final lines of their responses.

The breach occurred July 28, 2025

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• TransUnion says more than 4.4 million peoples personal data was exposed after hackers accessed a third-party app used for U.S. consumer support.

• The breach occurred on July 28 and was detected on July 30; exposed data includes names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, according to state filings.

• Reporting links the theft to a broader wave of attacks targeting companies Salesforce environments, though TransUnion hasnt named the vendor.

Credit reporting giant TransUnion has begun notifying more than 4.4 million people that their personal information was compromised last month. The company said the cyber incident was tied to a third-party application used for its U.S. consumer support operations.

In state filings and statements, TransUnion said the intrusion occurred on July 28, 2025, and was discovered two days later. The company emphasized that no credit reports or core credit information were accessed.

A subsequent filing clarified that the exposed data includes names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers elements that enable identity theft even without credit files. The company is offering affected individuals 24 months of free credit monitoring and fraud assistance.

While TransUnion did not identify the third-party platform, security researchers and reporters say the breach appears connected to a broader campaign in which threat actors exfiltrated data from organizations Salesforce instances. BleepingComputer, citing multiple sources including the ShinyHunters extortion group, reported that TransUnions stolen dataset was taken from its Salesforce account; SecurityWeek noted the possible Salesforce link and that similar attacks have hit other major brands this year. TransUnion has not confirmed those details.

Regulators were notified via the Office of the Maine Attorney General, a common venue for disclosure because it publishes breach notices publicly. TransUnion told Maine authorities that 4,461,511 individuals were impacted.

TechCrunch first reported the Maine and Texas filings and noted that the data elements include Social Security numbers.

The incident underscores the risk concentration in customer-support and CRM systems that store sensitive identifiers alongside service tickets and contact information. Recent advisories have warned of voice-phishing and session-hijacking campaigns aimed at cloud-hosted business apps, which can bypass traditional perimeter defenses once access is obtained.

What to do

Authorities say consumers should:

• Place a free freeze with TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian to block new credit lines; you can lift it temporarily when needed.

• Add a fraud alert if you dont want a full freeze; it requires lenders to take extra steps to verify your identity.

• Enroll in the offered monitoring and set account alerts for new applications, address changes, and hard inquiries.

• Watch your mail and email for phishing attempts referencing the breach, and use unique passwords plus a password manager.