SUVs did better in the tests than minivans and pickups

• Updated crash tests show back seat passengers face higher risks than those up front

• Stricter standards cut the number of Top Safety Pick award winners to 48, down from 71 last year

• Only two large pickups the Rivian R1T and Toyota Tundra made the 2025 list

Back seat protection falls behind

Minivans and pickups are falling short when it comes to protecting rear seat passengers, according to new safety testing by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

The groups 2025 Top Safety Pick awards reveal that belted adults riding in the back seat of newer vehicles face a higher risk of fatal injury compared with those in the front. The shortfall reflects how much faster automakers have improved front-seat safety features, leaving the back seat lagging behind.

IIHS now requires that second-row occupants have protection equal to whats offered in the front. As a result, only 48 vehicles earned safety awards this year down from 71 at this point in 2024.

SUVs dominate, minivans and pickups falter

Small and midsize SUVs claimed the majority of honors, with 12 vehicles earning the Top Safety Pick rating and the rest achieving the higher Top Safety Pick Plus.

But the picture was bleak for other categories. Not a single minivan, large car, small pickup, or minicar made the list. Only two large pickups the Rivian R1T and Toyota Tundra qualified under the tougher rules.

Detroit automakers struggled as well. Ford landed two models the Mustang Mach-E and Lincoln Nautilus in the Top Safety Pick Plus category, while Chevrolets Traverse managed a Top Safety Pick. Stellantis failed to place any vehicles.

IIHS President David Harkey said he was disappointed with the lack of strong performers from U.S. brands, particularly in family-oriented vehicles such as minivans.

Some of the automakers behind vehicles advertised as family-friendly need to step up and make improvements quickly, he said.

Harkey pointed to two key safety technologies that are now common in the front seat but rare in the back: pre-tensioner belts, which tighten before a collision to position passengers properly, and load limiters, which loosen slightly during impact to reduce chest injuries.

How the tests worked

IIHS researchers simulated head-on collisions at 40 mph with 40% overlap, measuring how well seat belts protected rear passengers. A new, smaller crash-test dummy representing either a petite woman or a 12-year-old child was placed behind the driver to highlight risks to smaller occupants.

The tests tracked chest injuries, abdominal trauma from submarining under the lap belt, and how far forward a passengers head traveled on impact.

It wasnt that the back seat has become less safe its just that weve continued to make all these advancements in the front seat, and weve left the back seat behind, Harkey said.

Bottom line for families

Despite the weaker scores, IIHS continues to recommend the back seat as the safest place for children under 13. Still, the findings highlight how far automakers must go to bring rear passenger protection in line with the front.

Cable customers stay even when unhappy

• Cable TV customers report lower satisfaction but are less likely to switch

• Streaming scores higher but suffers from higher churn

• Verizon Fios leads traditional TV; YouTube TV rules streaming

If youre frustrated with your cable bill or service, youre not alone. J.D. Powers latest U.S. Television Service Provider Satisfaction Study shows cable and satellite customers give their providers a mediocre 531 out of 1,000 on satisfaction. Live TV streamers? They clock in at 630.

But heres the twist: despite being less happy, cable customers tend to stay longer. Why? Contracts, limited provider options and bundled internet deals make it more of a headache to switch.

Why bundles matter

Cable TV providers have longer-standing customer relationships and more tenure than live TV streaming services, said Carl Lepper, senior director at J.D. Power. He points out that bundling internet and TV is still a major drawand often the reason people stick around even when the service disappoints.

Streaming services, meanwhile, deliver higher satisfaction but also face higher turnover. Subscribers are quicker to cancel or jump between platforms depending on price, content and promotions.

Who comes out on top

If youre weighing your options, heres how the top providers stack up:

• Cable/Satellite: Verizon Fios leads the pack with a 577 score, followed by Spectrum (536) and Xfinity (533).

• Streaming: YouTube TV dominates for the third straight year, scoring 649well above the streaming average of 630.

What it means for you

• If youre on cable: Bundling might save you money or hassle, but youll likely sacrifice satisfaction.

• If youre streaming: Youll probably be happier with the service but may find yourself switching more often.

• If youre undecided: Check whether your internet options allow for streaming. In areas with limited broadband, cable bundles may still make more sense.

The bottom line: cable is stickier, but streaming is happier. Your choice may come down to whether you value stabilityor flexibility.

What to know

• Cable customers arent happy: Average satisfaction score of 531 vs. 630 for streaming.

• Switching is a hassle: Contracts, limited provider choices, and bundled internet keep people locked in.

• Streaming wins on experience: Higher satisfaction but more customer churn.

• Top picks: Verizon Fios leads cable; YouTube TV tops streaming for the third straight year.

• Bottom line: Cable = stickier, streaming = happier.

Kirkland Signature brand Ahi Tuna Wasabi Poke may be contaminated with listeria

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Western United Fish Company is recalling 3,314 pounds of Kirkland Signature Ahi Tuna Wasabi Poke due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.

• The recalled product was sold on Sept. 18 in the deli section at Costco warehouses across 34 states.

• No illnesses have been reported yet. Customers should not eat the product, dispose of it immediately, and request a full refund at Costco. For questions, contact Annasea Foods at (425) 558-7809 or info@annasea.com

Western United Fish Company, dba Annasea Foods Group, has issued an urgent recall of 3,314 pounds of Kirkland Signature brand Ahi Tuna Wasabi Poke, Costco Item Number of 17193, with the Sell By Date of 9/22/2025.

The recall was issued because the green onions used in the product have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

The affected Ahi Tuna Wasabi Poke product is packaged in clear plastic clamshell containers and has the Kirkland Signature brand label with the Pack Date of 9/18/2025 and Sell By Date of 9/22/2025.

The product was sold at the deli section from Costco Warehouse stores in the following states on Sept. 18, 2025: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

What to do

This recall was initiated after the company was notified by its green onion supplier of a Listeria monocytogenes positive test result in the green onions, which were used only in Ahi Tuna Wasabi Poke on Sept. 17. The company said it is continuing to work with its green onion supplier to determine the root cause.

Consumers should not consume this affected product and dispose of it immediately and visit your local Costco for a full refund.

Please call Annasea Foods Group at (425) 558-7809, 7:00am - 3:30pm Pacific Time, Monday Friday, or email info@annasea.com if you have any issues or concerns.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Federal Trade Commission is suing the retailer for alleged deceptive practices

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• A landmark trial begins, as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission moves forward with allegations that Amazon systematically misled consumers into signing up for its Prime membership.

• The FTC claims Amazon used deceptive interface designs so-called dark patterns to enroll users in automatically-renewing Prime subscriptions without meaningful consent, and made cancellation needlessly difficult.

• In recent pretrial rulings, a judge found Amazon violated the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA) by collecting billing information before disclosing key membership terms, and also held that Amazon executives could be held personally liable if the FTCs allegations are proven.
  

Millions of people are members of Amazons Prime but the Federal Trade Commission claims some are members against their will and find it hard to cancel.

After years of investigation, legal wrangling, and preliminary rulings, the trial in FTC v. Amazon.com Inc. begins this week in U.S. District Court in Seattle. The FTC is seeking remedies for what it describes as years-long deceptive practices tied to Amazons Prime program.

The allegations include:

• Deceptive signup flows: The complaint says that Amazon routinely presents consumers with options that make Prime subscription a default or overwhelming choice. Buttons enrolling customers tend to be large, prominently displayed, and worded to emphasize benefits (free shipping, trial, etc.), while the option to decline is obscured by size, position, or weaker language.

• Billing before full disclosure: According to the FTC, in many cases, Amazon collected payment information from prospective Prime members before clearly disclosing all the terms of the subscription including its automatic renewal, cancellation requirements, or full cost.

• Iliad cancellation scheme: The FTC alleges Amazon made the cancellation process overly long, labyrinthine, and discouraging. Internally, this complex cancellation path has been referred to as Iliad involving multiple pages, numerous clicks, and many choices or offers intended to persuade customers to stay.

Whats at stake

• The FTC is seeking civil penalties, injunctive relief (changes to how the Prime subscription and cancellation flows are structured), and possibly consumer refunds for people harmed by these alleged practices.

• Amazon strongly denies the claims, arguing that its disclosures are clear, that customers have the requisite information to make informed decisions, and that it has taken steps to simplify cancellation flows in response to feedback and regulatory pressure.

U.S. District Court Judge John Chun has already granted the FTC significant pretrial victories, ruling that Amazon violated ROSCA (Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act, a U.S. federal law passed in 2010), rejecting motions to dismiss major parts of the FTCs case, and allowing claims of executive liability to move forward.

The case builds on evolving legal scrutiny over dark patterns and subscription models with auto-renewal features. Regulators in the U.S. and abroad have increasingly focused on such practices as potentially deceptive under consumer protection laws.

The outcome of the jury trial may hinge on whether the FTC can prove that users were tricked in a legally meaningful way showing that Amazons interfaces and disclosures failed to give consumers a clear, informed choice.