Consumers say discounts were misleading, cite examples of "fake sales"

• Consumers accuse Amazon of inflating Prime Day discounts with fictional list prices.

• Lawsuit cites examples where sale prices were no betteror even higherthan regular prices.

• Case follows broader scrutiny of Amazons sales tactics, including a $2.5 billion FTC settlement.

Amazon is facing a proposed class action lawsuit claiming it misled shoppers with false discounts during its July Prime Day sale.

The complaint, filed in September in federal court in Washington state, was brought by Cathy Armstrong of California and Oluwa Fosudo of Maryland. They allege that Amazon relied on fictional list prices to exaggerate percentage-off deals, creating the illusion of bigger savings.

Amazon uses these fake Prime Day Percentage Discounts, offered under the extreme time pressure of the brief Prime Day window, to lure consumers to purchase products, the lawsuit states.

Examples of fake sales

The filing cites several Prime Day promotions that plaintiffs argue were deceptive:

• A pair of headphones promoted as 44% off a list price of $179.95. Plaintiffs allege the product had never been sold above $160, with a typical price between $130 and $160.

• An 8-inch Android kids tablet marketed as 40% off a list price of $119.99. According to the lawsuit, Amazon had sold the device between $50 and $85 in the 90 days before Prime Day. The deal price of $72.18 was actually higher than its $50 price in April and roughly the same as its usual selling price.

The complaint argues that without Amazons allegedly inflated discounts, customers might have shopped around for better deals or waited for a lower price.

Quick checklist

Compare across sites Check the same product on at least two or three other major retailers.
Track price history Use tools like CamelCamelCamel, Honey, or Keepa to see if the deal price is really a bargain.
Watch the fine print Be cautious when the list price seems unusually high or doesnt match what youve seen before.
Dont rush Sales countdowns are designed to pressure shoppers. Take a pause before buying.
Look for was/now patterns If a products deal price is about the same as its usual selling price, the discount may be exaggerated.

Legal action builds on outside reporting

The lawsuit was filed shortly after Popular Information, a newsletter focused on corporate accountability, published a report highlighting questionable pricing tactics on Amazons site during the July 811 sale.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Amazon also declined to comment. On its website, the company described the four-day sale as its biggest Prime event ever, claiming customers saved billions on deals.

The case adds to mounting scrutiny of Amazons marketing and sales practices. Just last month, the e-commerce giant agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that it tricked consumers into signing up for Prime and made cancellations difficult.

That settlement included a record-setting $1 billion civil penalty for violating FTC rules.

Meanwhile, Amazon continues to expand its Prime Day brand, hosting another sales event Oct. 78.

Perfect heres a sidebar explainer you can run alongside the main story. It follows the recall/scam package style youve been using:

Why retailers use fake discounts

• Anchoring effect: A high strikethrough price makes the actual price look better, even if it isnt.

• Urgency: Limited-time Prime Day or flash-sale events create a fear of missing out.

• Volume sales: Even small exaggerations can push thousands of extra purchases.

What to do if you think you overpaid

• Contact the seller: Ask for a price adjustment or refund if you can show the price was lower before or after the sale.

• Report it: File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or your state attorney general if you believe discounts were deceptive.

• Leave a review: Warn other shoppers by leaving a factual review noting the price discrepancy.

Bottom line

A 40% off or limited-time deal may not always mean savings. The safest bet is to research a products real price history before clicking Buy Now.

The Bolt returns, with a sub-$30k price tag and a limited production run

• GM revives the Chevrolet Bolt for 2027 as an affordable, limited-run EV.

• Starting price: $29,990, with a lower-cost $28,995 version coming later in the model year.

• Bolt promises the most range of any EV under $30,000, plus new charging and tech features.

General Motors is bringing back the Chevrolet Bolt, three years after it was discontinued, responding to customer loyalty and calls for its return. The 2027 Bolt will debut with a $29,990 launch price, including destination charges, while a lower-priced LT trim at $28,995 will follow later in the model year.

Chevy plans a limited production run, with shipments beginning early next year. The Bolt will join the Chevrolet Equinox EV, one of the markets best-selling electric crossovers, in cementing the brands focus on affordability in the EV space. Together, GM expects the two models to make up most of Chevrolets 2026 EV sales volume.

The Bolt was the industrys first affordable, long-range EV, said Scott Bell, GMs vice president of Global Chevrolet. Customers told us how much they loved it, and now its backbetter than ever.

Whats new in the 2027 Bolt

Chevrolet is highlighting 10 major upgrades for the refreshed Bolt, including:

• A GM-estimated 255 miles of driving range

• DC fast charging up to 150 kW, slashing charge time from 10% to 80% to just 26 minutes

• A native NACS charging port for wider access to public chargers

• A larger 11.3-inch infotainment screen with Google built-in apps like HBO Max, Chrome, and Angry Birds

• Available Super Cruise hands-free driver assistance

• More than 20 standard safety features, including Intersection Collision Mitigation and Rear Automatic Braking

• New RS trim with sportier design elements

• Refined interior with open-console design and added storage

• Vehicle-to-home bi-directional power capability

• Expanded connectivity with multiple USB-C ports and wireless charging

Motivated by efficiency

At the heart of the 2027 Bolt is GMs latest X76 electric drive unit, designed in-house to maximize efficiency and reduce reliance on rare-earth materials. The system uses segmented magnets and silicon carbide inverters to minimize energy loss, while a blended regenerative braking system helps recapture energy more effectively.

These updates, GM says, translate to lower costs, better driving range, and improved performance compared to previous Bolt models.

Tech and entertainment upgrades

The 2027 Bolt comes loaded with software-driven features. Google Maps is integrated directly with the vehicles systems to suggest routes, recommend charging stops, and even precondition the battery before DC fast charging.

Super Cruise integrates with Maps to show hands-free routes, while Hey Google voice assistance lets drivers control cabin features, send texts, or manage smart-home devices on the go.

When parked, the infotainment system doubles as an entertainment hub, offering streaming services and games via Google Play.

Charging and home power

The 2027 Bolt introduces Chevrolets first native NACS charging port, making it compatible with a growing network of fast-charging stations. Most U.S. EV drivers charge at home, and with an estimated 255-mile range, GM says the new Bolt will easily cover the average Americans 42 miles of daily driving.

In addition, the vehicles bi-directional vehicle-to-home capability means it can supply backup power to a house during an outage when paired with GMs home energy system.

Familiar shape, modern interior

While its hatchback silhouette remains familiar, the new Bolts interior is designed to feel more open and tech-forward. A reconfigured center console, available panoramic sunroof, and an 11-inch driver display complement the larger infotainment screen.

Chevy has blended physical and touch controls for convenience, while adding practical storage spaces and premium touches such as heated and ventilated seats.

While many think light drinking isnt a risk, recent research says otherwise

• Even light drinking (under seven drinks a week) showed no protective effect in the largest combined study to date.

• Genetic analyses suggest the more alcohol youre predisposed to consume, the higher your dementia risk.

• The drop in drinking before diagnosis hints that earlier studies showing benefits may have been misled by reverse causation.

If youve ever heard that a glass of wine a day is good for your brain, recent research suggests its time to pause and reconsider.

A new large-scale study combining observational data and genetic methods argues that any amount of alcohol might increase the risk of dementia. What looked like a protective effect of light or moderate drinking in past studies could, in fact, be a misleading artifact.

The findings challenge a long-held assumption: that low levels of alcohol are harmless or even beneficial for cognitive health.

Our study findings support a detrimental effect of all types of alcohol consumption on dementia risk, with no evidence supporting the previously suggested protective effect of moderate drinking, the researchers wrote.

The study

To tackle this question, researchers used two main strategies:

1. Observational data. They drew from two major biobank projects the U.S. Million Veteran Program and the U.K. Biobank to examine real-world drinking habits and incidence of dementia. Participants between 56 and 72 years old were followed over time until they developed dementia, died, or reached the end of follow-up (2019 for MVP, 2022 for UKB). Alcohol intake was self-reported (frequency, volume) and supplemented with the AUDIT-C screening tool for risky drinking behaviors (like binge drinking). In total, 559,559 people entered the observational analyses, and 14,540 developed dementia during the follow-up.

2. Mendelian randomization (genetic analysis). This method treats genetic variants associated with alcohol consumption as proxies (or instruments) for long-term drinking behavior. In this study, they considered three different genetic measures: predisposition toward average weekly drinks, risky drinking, and alcohol dependence. The goal: to minimize confounding (other factors influencing both drinking and dementia) and test whether a causal link might exist. For the genetic analyses, they drew on genome-wide association study (GWAS) data covering millions of people.
   

By combining both approaches, the researchers hoped to triangulate evidence: observations can show patterns, and genetics can help clarify whether those patterns suggest causation.

The results

In the observational analyses, the relationship between alcohol and dementia looked U-shaped. This means that both low and high levels of something are linked to worse outcomes, while moderate levels are linked to the best outcomes.

For this study, that looked like: both abstainers and heavy drinkers (40+ drinks/week) had about a 41% higher risk of dementia, compared with light drinkers (less than seven drinks per week). That figure climbed to 51% higher for those with alcohol dependence. That pattern might look like light drinking is protective but observational data alone can be misleading.

The genetic (Mendelian randomisation) analyses told a different story: there was no protective effect at low levels. Instead, dementia risk rose steadily with greater genetically predicted alcohol intake across all categories. For example, each additional one to three drinks per week (by genetic risk) was linked to a 15% higher dementia risk. Doubling the genetic propensity for alcohol dependence was tied to a 16% increased risk. In short, more drinking (genetically indicated) = more risk, in a roughly linear fashion.

One particularly telling insight: many individuals who were later diagnosed with dementia had gradually reduced their alcohol consumption in the years before diagnosis. That suggests that early (preclinical) brain changes might lead people to cut back a phenomenon called reverse causation. If so, earlier observational studies that found benefits from light drinking may have been capturing that effect, rather than a true benefit of alcohol.

The authors do note limitations: the strongest associations came from those of European ancestry (because of sample sizes), and Mendelian randomization depends on certain assumptions that cant be fully tested. Nonetheless, they conclude that their findings oppose the idea of a safe or beneficial low dose of alcohol for brain health and argue that reducing alcohol intake could be a meaningful strategy for dementia prevention.

Our findings highlight the importance of considering reverse causation and residual confounding in studies of alcohol and dementia, and they suggest that reducing alcohol consumption may be an important strategy for dementia prevention, the team wrote.

New research suggests fruit intake might lessen pollutions hit on lung strength

• In a large U.K.-based study, people who ate more fruit showed smaller declines in lung function linked to air pollution.

• The study compared fine particulate exposure (PM.) with lung capacity (FEV), adjusting for age, height, income, and more.

• The protective signal was strongest in women: high fruit consumers lost less lung volume per pollution increment than low fruit consumers.

We all know that polluted air can be bad news for our lungs. But what if something as simple as eating more fruit could provide a bit of a shield?

Thats the provocative idea behind new research presented at the European Respiratory Society Congress. The study explores whether a healthy diet especially fruit intake might soften the negative impact of fine-particle air pollution (PM.) on lung function.

Over 90% of the global population is exposed to air pollution levels that exceed World Health Organization guidelines, and ample research shows that exposure to higher air pollution levels is associated with reduced lung function, researcher Pimpika Kaewsri said in a news release.

Separately, a healthy diet particularly one high in fruits and vegetables has been linked to better lung function. We wanted to explore whether a healthy diet or specific food groups could modify or partly mitigate the known adverse effects of air pollution on lung function.

The study

To dig into this question, the researchers tapped into U.K. Biobank data, drawing on around 200,000 participants with available information on diet, lung function, and modeled air pollution exposure.

They looked at participants reported fruit, vegetable, and whole-grain intake, then compared that with their lung function measured as FEV essentially how much air one can forcibly exhale in one second.

The key pollutant considered was PM., tiny particles 2.5 micrometers or smaller, known to pose risks in urban and industrial settings.

Importantly, their statistical models did more than just compare apples to apples. They adjusted for factors like age, height, socioeconomic status, and other lifestyle elements to better isolate the role of diet.

One caveat: this is a cross-sectional (snapshot) analysis meaning it looks at associations at one point in time, not changes over years. Experts caution that this limits claims about cause and effect.

The results: What they found

Heres where things get interesting: for every increase of 5 g/m in PM. exposure, women in the low fruit intake group showed a drop of about 78.1 mL in FEV, whereas high fruit consumers saw a smaller drop of 57.5 mL.

The researchers interpreted this as a possible buffering effect of fruit perhaps thanks to antioxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds that help combat oxidative stress from pollutants.

However and this is important the signal was more apparent in women, who tended to report higher fruit intake than men in this sample. The study authors are cautious: they dont claim fruit prevents pollution damage, only that it may be associated with less decline in lung function in certain groups.

Our study confirmed that a healthy diet is linked to better lung function in both men and women regardless of air pollution exposure, Kaewsri said. And that women who consumed four portions of fruit per day or more appeared to have smaller reductions in lung function associated with air pollution, compared to those who consumed less fruit.

This may be partly explained by the antioxidant and anti-inflammation compounds naturally present in fruit. These compounds could help mitigate oxidative stress and inflammation caused by fine particles, potentially offsetting some of the harmful effects of air pollution on lung function.

Implications for You: Small Changes, Possible Big Payoff

While this study doesnt prove that fruit protects your lungs from pollution, it does add to growing evidence that diet can influence how your body responds to environmental stress. Heres what that could mean for you:

• Add more fruit variety: The researchers didnt single out any one type of fruit so aim for a mix. Citrus fruits, berries, and apples are all rich in antioxidants that may help counter oxidative damage caused by air pollutants.

• Think add, not replace: The benefits seem to come from eating more fruit overall, not just swapping out other foods. Try adding fruit to breakfast, snacks, or even savory dishes.

• Diet isnt a substitute for clean air: No amount of healthy eating can fully offset the harms of pollution reducing exposure remains key. But eating nutrient-dense foods may offer an extra layer of support for your lungs and overall health.