Why fraudulent ads, fake websites, and rushed clicks are more common than ever during Black Friday

• Scammers are using Black Friday buzz to disguise fake ads, bogus storefronts, and too-good-to-be-true deals.

• Fraud experts say red flags include sites with endless high-demand products and failed payments meant to harvest card numbers.

• Shoppers can protect themselves by sticking to trusted retailers, using official apps, and adopting a trust but verify mindset before buying.

Black Friday has become the unofficial kickoff to holiday shopping and scammers know it.

Fraudsters are already working overtime to grab a piece of your wallet, from misleading ads to fake websites designed to look like your favorite retailers, the risks are higher than most people realize.

ConsumerAffairs interviewed Scamnetic CEO Al Pascual to learn about the biggest threats this year that are hiding in plain sight.

Biggest scam risks

With consumers shopping more during the holidays, its the perfect time for scammers to strike.

Criminals take advantage of the holidays to better camouflage their activities, hiding them within and among legitimate activity, Pascual said. Black Friday provides the perfect cover to offer 'too good to be true' deals on in-demand products under the auspices of a seemingly legitimate e-commerce site.

And as the holiday season passes, deals and hard-to-get gifts will become even more appealing to unfortunate victims who take the bait.

Red flags of a scam

Pascual also shared some of the red flags consumers should be aware of this holiday season.

If a consumer visits a site that seemingly has a wide array of in-demand products, that is a sign that they may have found themselves on a fake storefront, he said.

Another potential sign is if the site is unable to process your payment, despite changing the card being used. This could indicate that the site was designed to harvest card numbers from victims.

Protecting yourself this holiday season

While scammers may be running rampant this holiday season, consumers can still do everything in their power to protect themselves and their personal information.

The best thing consumers can do to avoid being scammed is to shop with trusted merchants directly through apps from the Google Play store or the Apple App store, Pascual said.

Scammers play on our trust. The best mindset is unfortunately one of constant skepticism, or put another way, consumers should 'trust but verify' before they ever share sensitive information and make a payment.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is warning of a serious fire risk involving the HALO Bolt AC-DC charger

Consumers with chargers made before December 2020 should stop using them and dispose of them properly.

• Fire and burn hazard from aging lithium-ion batteries

• Affects HALO Bolt ACDC 58830 units made in or before December 2019

• Stop use immediately and follow local disposal rules

Consumers are being warned to immediately stop using HALO Bolt ACDC 58830 portable chargers manufactured in or before December 2019. Reports include burn injuries and property damage due to the chargers catching fire. The risk is linked to the age of the product and its lithium-ion battery.

The affected chargers were sold at Best Buy and other retailers, both in stores and online, including QVC.com and Amazon.com. The chargers can be identified by the brand HALO on top and the model BOLT ACDC 58830 on the back label. Only units with a manufacturing year code of 16, 17, 18 or 19 are affected.

The hazard

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received reports of these HALO chargers catching fire. One burn injury and several instances of property damage have been reported. The hazard is connected to lithium-ion battery failures, particularly in products manufactured before December 2019.

What to do

Consumers should immediately stop using the HALO Bolt ACDC 58830 portable chargers made in or before December 2019. Dispose of the product in accordance with state and local ordinances for battery-powered devices. Do not attempt to use, repair or charge the affected units.

The cost is a leading reason people stop taking the meds

One in eight U.S. adults now take GLP-1 drugs, but many struggle to afford them
Cost is a leading reason people stop using the medications
Most Americans doubt Trump administration policies will lower drug prices

About one in eight U.S. adults (12%) say they are currently taking a GLP-1 medication such as Ozempic or Wegovy for weight loss, diabetes, heart disease or another chronic condition, a new KFF Health Tracking Poll shows. Thats a notable increase from 18 months ago, even as many users report difficulty affording the drugs high price tags.

Nearly one in five adults (18%) say they have used a GLP-1 drug at some point. Women are more likely than men to report current use (15% vs. 9%), and uptake is highest among adults ages 50 to 64 (22%). Use drops sharply among those 65 and older (9%), reflecting Medicares continued prohibition on covering GLP-1 drugs when prescribed for weight loss alone.

Use is highest among those managing chronic conditions

GLP-1 medications are especially common among adults who report serious health conditions. More than half of adults diagnosed with diabetes (57%) say they have used the drugs, including 45% who are currently taking them. Use is also widespread among those with heart disease (40% ever; 29% currently) and among people diagnosed as obese or overweight in the past five years (34% ever; 23% currently).

Yet insurance coverage remains uneven. While most users say their insurer paid at least part of the cost, more than a quarter of insured users (27%) say they paid the full cost themselves.

Cost remains a major obstacle

The pollconducted before the Trump administrations latest policy announcements on GLP-1 coveragefinds that more than half of current or former GLP-1 users (56%) say the medications were difficult to afford. Even among those with insurance, 55% report affordability challenges.

Cost is among the most common reasons people stop taking the drugs. Fourteen percent of users say they discontinued treatment because they could not afford it, while 13% cite side effects and just 5% say they stopped because their condition improved.

Other barriers also persist. Roughly one in six GLP-1 users (17%) say they obtained the drugs online, and nearly one in ten (9%) say they got them from a medical spaan indication of the growing gray market around the blockbuster medications.

Among adults who have never taken a GLP-1 drug, interest in weight-loss use remains strong. About one in five (22%) say they would consider taking one, including 7% who say they are very interested. Interest is especially high43%among adults diagnosed as obese or overweight but not currently using such drugs.

Many skeptical that Trump policies will lower drug prices

Public expectations are low for the Trump administrations efforts to lower drug costs, including new Medicaid rebate deals, discounted IVF medications, and a proposed TrumpRx purchasing portal. Nearly two-thirds of adults (62%) say these measures are not too likely or not at all likely to reduce costs for people like them.

Partisan divides are stark: 73% of Republicans and 83% of self-identified MAGA supporters believe the administration will lower drug prices, compared to 33% of independents and just 9% of Democrats.

Medicare enrollees are more optimistic. About half (49%) of adults 65 and older with Medicare say they expect Trumps policies to lower their prescription costsoutpacing adults with employer coverage (34%) or Medicaid (32%).

Many still struggle to pay for prescriptions

Across the broader public, one in four adults (26%) say they or someone in their household had trouble paying for prescription medications in the past year. The burden is heavier among uninsured adults (41%), Hispanic adults (33%), Black adults (32%) and those with household incomes below $40,000 (33%).

The KFF survey was conducted Oct. 27Nov. 2, 2025, among a nationally representative sample of 1,350 U.S. adults, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Microsoft says it will appeal the ruling, which strikes at the heart of its business model

UK tribunal says Microsoft licenses can be legally resold
Ruling rejects Microsofts copyright claim; company plans to appeal
Decision clears path for resellers 270M damages case to proceed

Microsoft says it will challenge a decision by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) that strikes at the heart of its long-standing restrictions on reselling software licenses. The tribunal ruled that perpetual licenses for products such as Windows and Microsoft Office can legally be resoldrejecting Microsofts argument that such activity infringes its copyright.

The case dates back to 2021, when UK reseller ValueLicensing sued Microsoft over contractual terms that barred customers from reselling previously issued licenses. The reseller argued that these restrictions violated the principles of the European Software Directive and had cost the company millions in lost revenue.

Microsoft initially fought the claim on contractual grounds, but later advanced a copyright infringement theory. Because Office programs include interface elements such as icons and graphics, the company argued they should be treated as original artistic works, making license resale a copyright violation.

Judges dismissed that argument, saying the presence of such graphics does not convert software licenses into copyrighted creative works that restrict resale. Customers holding perpetual licenses are free to resell them, the tribunal saidechoing a decade-old precedent set in the UKs UsedSoft case.

The ruling could make it easier and cheaper for UK consumers and businesses to obtain Windows 11 or Office through the secondary market if it holds up on appeal.

ValueLicensing says decision validates its business

ValueLicensing has always believed it was running a legitimate business underpinned by the principles of the European Software Directive and the UsedSoft judgment at the ECJ, the companys managing director said following the ruling. This judgment confirms these principles, which legitimately allowed ValueLicensing to save its customers money on used Microsoft software.

The company said it now plans to refocus on the core of its lawsuit, which seeks damages for what it alleges were unlawful restrictions that hampered its business.

Case moves to damages phase and more litigation awaits

With the copyright argument dismissed, Microsoft will need a new defense as the lawsuit proceeds. If it ultimately loses, the company could face millions in damages to ValueLicensing.

But the financial risk doesnt end there. Microsoft is also tied up in a separate, similar class-action suit alleging abuse of market dominance and anti-competitive licensing practicesexposure that could reach into the billions.

For a company long accustomed to accusations of restrictive contracts and inflated pricing, the latest rulings add to a familiar pattern of legal headaches. Yet with Microsofts valuation supercharged by the AI boom, the litigation may amount to little more than a costly distraction for the tech giant.

Microsoft says it will appeal the ruling, which strikes at the heart of its business model

UK tribunal says Microsoft licenses can be legally resold
Ruling rejects Microsofts copyright claim; company plans to appeal
Decision clears path for resellers 270M damages case to proceed

Microsoft says it will challenge a decision by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) that strikes at the heart of its long-standing restrictions on reselling software licenses. The tribunal ruled that perpetual licenses for products such as Windows and Microsoft Office can legally be resoldrejecting Microsofts argument that such activity infringes its copyright.

The case dates back to 2021, when UK reseller ValueLicensing sued Microsoft over contractual terms that barred customers from reselling previously issued licenses. The reseller argued that these restrictions violated the principles of the European Software Directive and had cost the company millions in lost revenue.

Microsoft initially fought the claim on contractual grounds, but later advanced a copyright infringement theory. Because Office programs include interface elements such as icons and graphics, the company argued they should be treated as original artistic works, making license resale a copyright violation.

Judges dismissed that argument, saying the presence of such graphics does not convert software licenses into copyrighted creative works that restrict resale. Customers holding perpetual licenses are free to resell them, the tribunal saidechoing a decade-old precedent set in the UKs UsedSoft case.

The ruling could make it easier and cheaper for UK consumers and businesses to obtain Windows 11 or Office through the secondary market if it holds up on appeal.

ValueLicensing says decision validates its business

ValueLicensing has always believed it was running a legitimate business underpinned by the principles of the European Software Directive and the UsedSoft judgment at the ECJ, the companys managing director said following the ruling. This judgment confirms these principles, which legitimately allowed ValueLicensing to save its customers money on used Microsoft software.

The company said it now plans to refocus on the core of its lawsuit, which seeks damages for what it alleges were unlawful restrictions that hampered its business.

Case moves to damages phase and more litigation awaits

With the copyright argument dismissed, Microsoft will need a new defense as the lawsuit proceeds. If it ultimately loses, the company could face millions in damages to ValueLicensing.

But the financial risk doesnt end there. Microsoft is also tied up in a separate, similar class-action suit alleging abuse of market dominance and anti-competitive licensing practicesexposure that could reach into the billions.

For a company long accustomed to accusations of restrictive contracts and inflated pricing, the latest rulings add to a familiar pattern of legal headaches. Yet with Microsofts valuation supercharged by the AI boom, the litigation may amount to little more than a costly distraction for the tech giant.