Consumer News: Hassan presses corporate mobile-home park owners over rent hikes, poor conditions

The rule will presumably override any state laws regulating AI

• President plans One Rulebook for artificial intelligence, aiming to override state regulations
• Big Tech backs a unified federal standard, while state leaders in both parties warn of lost consumer protections
• Order expected to challenge state authority through preemption, lawsuits and potential funding restrictions

President Trump says he'll issue an executive order that will block state attempts to protect consumers from abuses by artificial intelligence (AI), responding to the pleas of the Big Tech companies that are in a race to dominate the fast-evolving technology.

The action would mark a major victory for tech giants that have urged the administration to preempt state laws including those intended to protect children that they view as fragmented and burdensome. It is also likely to spark sharp backlash from governors, attorneys general and lawmakers who say states must retain the ability to protect consumers.

There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI, Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that companies cannot be expected to secure 50 approvals every time they want to do something.

Details unclear, but preemption strategy expected

Though Trump did not provide specifics, Reuters reported last month that the White House is considering an order that would challenge state AI laws through federal preemption, court action and restrictions on federal funding.

The proposal represents an escalation of Trumps earlier push for Congress to insert language blocking state AI regulations into a major defense bill. Lawmakers from both parties rejected that idea, and the Senate voted 991 to preserve state authority over AI legislation.

Companies including OpenAI, Google, Meta and venture firm Andreessen Horowitz have lobbied heavily for federal rules that override state statutes. Industry leaders argue that complying with disparate regulations would slow innovation, burden developers and allow China to outpace the U.S. in AI leadership.

They say a unified national framework would provide consistent expectations and reduce legal uncertainty across jurisdictions.

States insist on guardrails to protect residents

State leadersRepublican and Democrat alikesay local governments must retain the ability to respond to AI risks affecting their citizens.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last week proposed an AI bill of rights that would include privacy protections, parental controls and consumer safeguards. Other states have enacted laws banning nonconsensual sexual imagery, prohibiting unauthorized political deepfakes, restricting discriminatory AI practices, and regulating high-risk AI systems. California will soon require major developers to document how they plan to address catastrophic-risk scenarios.

North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson, a Democrat, rebuked Trumps earlier attempt to block state oversight. Congress cant fail to create real safeguards and then block the states from stepping up, he said.

A new federal-state clash over tech regulation

The anticipated order sets the stage for a sweeping legal and political battle over AI governance, with implications for privacy, innovation and consumer protection.

If the White House proceeds with the One Rule directive, courts will likely be asked to decide whether the federal government can sharply limit state authority in an area where Congress has yet to enact comprehensive legislation.

State officials warn that, absent robust federal standards, a preemption effort would leave millions of residents exposed to risks ranging from fraud to civil-rights violations. Tech companies counter that only a uniform national rule will allow the U.S. to maintain global AI competitiveness.

The executive order is expected later this week.

Examples of state AI/deepfake and AI-systems laws

• Colorado AI Act Colorado in 2024 passed legislation regulating high-risk AI systems that affect areas such as employment, housing, insurance and government services.

• ELVIS Act (Tennessee) This 2024 law prohibits unauthorized AI-generated voice or likeness impersonations. It was touted as a protection against AI-enabled voice cloning and deepfakes.

• State laws banning or restricting distribution of AI-generated or otherwise manipulated deepfake sexual imagery or nonconsensual intimate content Forty-six states have enacted laws prohibiting creation or distribution of explicit deepfakes, including revenge porn, to protect individuals privacy and prevent abuse.

• State laws regulating use of deepfakes in political or election-related communications As of 2025, roughly 28 states have passed laws restricting AI-generated media used in political campaigns or elections, aiming to curb misinformation and deception.

What these laws seek to do and what preemption could erase

These state-level laws typically aim to:

• Ban nonconsensual or exploitative sexual content created by AI.

• Prohibit impersonation or unauthorized use of a persons likeness or voice via AI (e.g., the ELVIS Act).

• Regulate AI-generated content used in elections or political messaging.

• Impose transparency or safety requirements on use of high-risk AI systems for example, to prevent discriminatory outcomes in housing, employment or insurance (as with the Colorado law).

If a federal executive order imposed a single national rule that preempts state laws, many or all of those protections could be voided along with any state-level enforcement mechanisms.

Why state-level action has surged

• Rapid expansion of generative-AI and deepfake tools has made misuse easier and cheaper; lawmakers responded with targeted bans on nonconsensual deepfakes and AI-enabled impersonation. (multistate.us)

• Growing awareness that discrimination, bias or safety harms could arise from AI systems used in sensitive areas (hiring, housing, public services) prompting laws like Colorados targeting high-risk systems. (Wikipedia)

Climate deception alleged as insurance costs spike

Washington homeowners file first lawsuit linking climate deception to rising insurance premiums
Class action seeks to hold major oil companies liable for climate-driven insurance costs
Case claims decades of misinformation fueled a crisis now hitting consumers wallets

Two Washington state homeowners who have watched their insurance premiums surge in recent years have filed a groundbreaking federal lawsuit aimed at holding major oil companies responsible for climate-driven increases in home insurance costs.

The caseKennedy v. Exxon et al., filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washingtonargues that decades of deception by fossil fuel companies about the dangers of burning oil and gas have accelerated climate change. That, in turn, the suit says, has helped create a home-insurance crisis marked by skyrocketing rates and shrinking availability in high-risk areas.

Washington homeowners have seen rates rise 51% in six years. For plaintiff Richard Kennedy of Normandy Park, premiums have more than doubled since 2017, climbing from $1,012 to $2,149. Co-plaintiff Margaret Hazard of Carson has seen a similar jump. Their suit seeks class-action status for all homeowners who have purchased insurance after 2017 in Washingtonand potentially nationwide.

Extreme weather drives insurers to retreat

Federal data suggests the trend is broad and accelerating. A January report from the Treasury Departments Federal Insurance Office found that average home insurance premiums grew nearly 9% faster than inflation from 2018 to 2022 as storms, floods and wildfires intensified.

As climate-related disasters multiply, insurers are absorbing higher losses and pricing the added risk into their ratesor pulling back from high-risk markets altogether. Insurance really is the bleeding edge right now of the climate crisis, said Aaron Regunberg of Public Citizens climate accountability project.

Suit claims oil companies ran Big Tobacco playbook

The lawsuit accuses ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell and its subsidiary Equilon Enterprises, along with the American Petroleum Institute (API), of engaging in a coordinated, decades-long campaign to sow doubt about climate science, obstruct climate policies and mislead the public about the oil industrys role in warming the planet.

The companies have collectively generated $2.4 trillion in profits since 1990, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs argue those profits were protected by delaying the transition to clean energy while consumers now shoulder the economic fallout.

The complaint cites federal claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well as state claims including fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, nuisance and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLPlead counsel for the plaintiffs and a veteran of major tobacco litigationsaid the fossil fuel industry took its playbook directly from Big Tobacco and forced homeowners to pay for climate damages the companies helped cause.

Industry dismisses allegations as baseless

API senior vice president and general counsel Ryan Meyers called the case baseless and part of a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life. Meyers said climate policy belongs in Congress, not in a patchwork of courtrooms. Major oil companies contacted by Inside Climate News did not respond.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a frequent critic of the industrys climate record, said higher premiums are a direct result of the fossil fuel sectors decades-long campaign of disinformation. He warned of a looming Great Climate Insurance Collapse that could trigger widespread declines in property values.

A new legal front with national implications

Legal scholars say the suit opens another significant front in the growing wave of climate accountability litigation brought by states, cities, tribes and now individuals. Michael Gerrard of Columbia University noted it may be difficult to quantify exactly how deception worsened climate impacts, but said the link between climate change and higher insurance premiums is clear.

The Washington case follows a series of recent filings, including a first-of-its-kind wrongful death claim in Washington last spring tied to the 2021 heat dome. It also comes after a federal court in Puerto Rico dismissed a similar racketeering-based climate case on procedural groundsan issue Berman says his case avoids because the harm is newly caused.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a petition from oil companies seeking to halt a climate deception case out of Boulder, Coloradoa move that could reshape more than two dozen related cases nationwide. The justices are expected to discuss the petition on Dec. 12.

Rising risks, rising stakes

Experts warn that climate-driven insurance instability poses broad financial dangers that extend beyond homeowners. Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, likened the situation to the run-up to the 2007-08 financial crisis. Without insurance, he noted, buyers cannot obtain mortgages, property values fall and defaults multiply.

Climate breakdown is causing a cascade of disasters, including an insurance crisis that threatens another financial meltdown, Parenteau said. The damages are real and provable.

As the climate warms and the insurance market strains, the Washington lawsuit may become a key test of whether courts will hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate-related consumer harmsa question with stakes running far beyond the plaintiffs premium bills.

Its a follow-up to the Thanksgiving weekend civility push

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• $1 billion initiative aims to make airports easier and healthier for families

• Federal officials highlight need for kid-friendly spaces, nursing rooms, and better screening options

• Effort builds on Secretary Duffys Thanksgiving push for more civil, compassionate air travel

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has introduced a new initiative designed to make American airports friendlier for families, expanding on the Make Travel Family Friendly Again campaign he previewed during his Thanksgiving weekend call for more civil air travel.

The announcement comes as airports prepare for one of the busiest travel seasons of the year and as public frustration over the difficulties of traveling with children continues to grow.

At the center of the effort is a $1 billion federal investment to incentivize airports to create more family-centric spaces and services. The funding can be used for a wide range of improvements, including childrens play zones, exercise areas, dedicated family screening lanes, mothers rooms or nursing pods, and sensory rooms designed to support children with special needs.

Duffy emphasized that airports will have flexibility to propose creative terminal projects that meaningfully improve the travel experience for parents and kids alike.

Public-private effort

The campaign launch brought together federal leaders and private-sector partners, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nutrition specialist Dr. Paul Saladino, content creator and young mother Isabel Brown, and Farmers Fridge founder Luke Saunders. Their presence underscored the administrations broader goal: pairing infrastructure upgrades with expanded access to healthy, convenient food options in terminals nationwide.

Bringing about a Golden Age in travel has to involve making the family travel experience happier and healthier, Duffy said.

Kennedy echoed that message, arguing that fresh, whole foods should be as accessible during a long layover as they are at home.

Healthy eating is part of daily life

Secretary Duffy and I are working to ensure our airports set the standard for a future where healthy eating is part of daily lifetravel days included, Kennedy said.

The agencies pointed to the rising popularity of grab-and-go healthy vending options, such as Farmers Fridge, as evidence that travelers are eager for better food choices. They urged airport operators to seize the moment by expanding partnerships and rethinking outdated concession models.

The initiative builds on Duffys recent holiday-travel messaging, in which he urged airlines, airports, and passengers to take steps toward making air travel more courteous and humane.

In a rural area, it can take a long time

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Most pet owners can book vet appointments fairly quickly, a new study shows.

• But rural pet owners face longer waits and farther drives for basic veterinary care.

• Researchers say boosting the veterinary workforce could help close the gap.

A new multi-state study suggests that while most dog owners can get timely veterinary appointments, access to care drops sharply in rural communities, revealing a growing concern for pet health, owners well-being, and even public health.

Access to veterinary care appears to be generally pretty good and the wait times arent too long, particularly if you compare it to how long people often have to wait to establish primary care, said Simon Haeder, lead author and associate professor at Ohio States College of Public Health. But theres clearly room for improvement in less populated areas. The findings were published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Secret shoppers reveal uneven access

To measure real-world availability, researchers posed as dog owners and called more than 5,000 randomly selected veterinary practices across California, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington in early 2025.

Overall, callers were able to secure an appointment 67% of the time. When unsuccessful, it was usually because no one answered or callers were left on hold for more than five minutes, long enough to count as a failed attempt in the study. In nearly 4% of cases, clinics reported they were not accepting new patients.

Among successful appointments, wait times averaged 6.4 days, and the typical travel distance was also 6.4 miles, suggesting most pet owners dont have to go far or wait long for routine care.

Rural pet owners face steeper challenges

The picture changed dramatically in rural communities:

• Appointment success rate dropped to less than 62%

• Average wait time increased to 8.6 days

• Average travel distance more than doubled to 13 miles

These barriers could leave pets without timely preventive care or treatmentissues that can snowball into more serious health problems for animals and financial or emotional strain for their owners.

Haeder notes that after cost, access is the most common concern among pet owners. Delayed or inconsistent care doesnt only affect petsit can have wider public health implications, especially when it comes to vaccine-preventable diseases like rabies.

When pets dont receive prompt preventive care, diagnoses and treatment, both the pets and their owners suffer, Haeder said. And gaps in access can pose broader public health threats.

Potential solutions on the horizon

Efforts to expand the veterinary workforce may help narrow the rural gap. Ohio States College of Veterinary Medicine is part of a new statewide initiative, Protect One Health in Ohio, aimed at strengthening the veterinary workforce, safeguarding public health, and supporting the agricultural economy.

In a recent companion paper, college leaders outlined plans to train more veterinarians specifically to serve rural areas, where shortages are most pronounced.

As pet ownership continues to rise and rural communities struggle to attract veterinary professionals, the researchers suggest that expanding training programs could play a major role in ensuring all pets whether in cities or quiet farm towns receive the care they need.