Consumer News: New AARP Livability Index Platform picks top spots to live

Why this matters for your wallet

• 7-Eleven paid a record $4.5 million fine for secretly acquiring a gas station without FTC approval

• The company violated a 2018 consent order designed to prevent fuel price manipulation in local markets

• This enforcement action signals stronger merger oversight that could protect consumers from higher gas prices

If you've noticed gas prices varying wildly between stations in your neighborhood, corporate consolidation might be to blame. When big chains gobble up independent stations without proper oversight, it can reduce competition and drive up prices at the pump.

What happened with 7-Eleven

On December 8, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced that 7-Eleven will pay a record-breaking $4.5 million penalty for violating antitrust rules. This marks the largest civil penalty ever collected for a prior-notice violation in FTC history.

The violation stems from 7-Eleven's secret acquisition of a fuel outlet in St. Petersburg, Florida, in December 2018. The company was required under a 2018 consent order to notify the FTC before acquiring competing gas stations in 76 specific markets.

Instead, 7-Eleven bought the station without telling anyone. The company didn't inform the FTC about the acquisition until March 2022 more than three years later.

The bigger picture on gas station consolidation

This case originated from 7-Eleven's massive $3.3 billion acquisition of 1,100 Sunoco fuel outlets in 2018. The FTC found this mega-merger would harm competition and raise fuel prices for consumers in 76 local markets.

The consent order was designed to prevent exactly what happened in St. Petersburg stealth acquisitions that reduce competition without regulatory review.

How to protect yourself from gas price manipulation

1. Use gas price apps like GasBuddy or Waze to find the cheapest stations in your area and avoid price-gouging locations

2. Report suspected price fixing to the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov if you notice identical pricing across competing stations

3. Support independent gas stations when possible, as they often offer more competitive pricing than large chains

4. Consider fuel rewards programs that aren't tied to a single chain to maintain flexibility in where you shop

5. Monitor local news for proposed gas station mergers in your area and submit comments to the FTC if you're concerned about reduced competition

What this enforcement means going forward

The FTC is signaling a tougher stance on merger violations under new leadership. Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, stated that "merger remedies that protect competition are once again on the table."

This aggressive enforcement could prevent future stealth acquisitions that harm consumers. 7-Eleven was also required to sell the St. Petersburg station and commit to additional approval requirements for future purchases.

The bottom line: This record penalty shows regulators are serious about preventing gas station consolidation that drives up prices. While you can't control corporate mergers, you can vote with your wallet by choosing competitive stations and staying informed about proposed acquisitions in your area. The FTC's renewed enforcement efforts could mean more stable gas prices and better competition at the pump.

How to survive tipflation without ghosting your babysitter

• Holiday tipping is down in 2025 as tight budgets force people to tip fewer service providers, even though appreciation hasnt changed

• Fewer people are tipping at all, but those who do are mostly keeping amounts the same, prioritizing the helpers who truly went above and beyond

• To survive tipflation, plan tips in advance, team up on group gifts, and use low-cost thank-yous (like small gift cards or handwritten notes) instead of trying to tip everyone

If youre staring at a long mental list of people you should tip this year and doing the math in your head, youre not alone. A new Bankrate survey shows fewer Americans plan to hand out holiday tips in 2025 than they did last year. from housekeepers and landscapers to teachers, mail carriers and childcare providers.

The reason for pulling back on tipping isnt from a lack of appreciation, but rather budgets that have been stretched thin.

Fewer people are tipping, not necessarily tipping less

For many households, December has always been the time to say thank you to the people who take care of your kids, your home, or your deliveries. But this year, fewer people say theyll actually tip.

Among Americans who use these services, heres who plans to tip in 2025:

• 56% plan to tip a housekeeper
• 47% plan to tip a childcare provider
• 47% plan to tip a teacher
• 37% plan to tip a landscaper/gardener/snow remover
• 27% plan to tip a mail carrier
• 21% plan to tip a trash or recycling collector

Those numbers are all slightly lower than last year, with the biggest drops for childcare providers (from 55% to 47%) and teachers (from 53% to 47%).

The twist: among people who do tip, the amounts remained mostly flat compared to 2024. In a couple of categories, theyre even higher. The median tip for landscapers, gardeners and snow removers jumped from $30 to $50, and trash/recycling collectors went from $20 to $25.

So fewer people are tipping at all, but the people who still can tip are trying not to cut the size of the tip.

Younger adults feel the most pressure to tip

That pressure is strongest for younger consumers.

• 44% of Gen Z (1828) say they often feel obligated to tip
• 42% of millennials (2944) say the same
• That compares with 38% of Gen X and 29% of baby boomers

Younger adults have grown up with tip prompts almost everywhere. Whether its coffee shops, delivery apps, even some self-checkout screens, the pressure to tip can make tipping feel less like a choice and more like a character test.

But feeling obligated doesnt magically create extra money in your bank account. Many people simply dont have the budget to tip everyone theyd like to this year.

If you cant tip everyone, how do you decide?

Bankrate gives the greatadvice ofdeciding who really went above and beyond for you during the year and prioritizing them over workers who simply flip the iPad tip screen in your direction.

That might be:

• The babysitter who always stepped in at the last minute.
• The housekeeper who consistently went above and beyond your expectations.
• Or maybe the landscaping crew that handled every big storm without flinching or complaining.

If you cant afford to tip every single person on the typical holiday tip list, its smart to focus on the relationships that matter the most to your household. Being intentional in this way is better than spreading yourself too thin.

How to budget for holiday tips without blowing up your finances

If holiday tipping is stressing you out, here are a few small shifts that can make it more manageable:

1. Build the tip into the price upfront

So instead of thinking, The haircut is $60 and Ill figure out the tip later, think, This cut will cost me about $75 total with tip.

Bybreaking it down this way, it will help you decide ahead of time which services you can afford and how often, instead of being surprised with the total cost when its time to pay.

2. Team up with others when you can

Also, keep in mind that you dont have to shoulder every tip alone.

• Neighbors can pool money for the mail carrier or trash and recycling crew.
• Parents can chip in for a single, meaningful gift card or envelope for a teacher or classroom aide.

Pooling turns small amounts from multiple households into something more substantial without straining your budget.

3. Use low-cost ways to say thank you

Sure, cash is great, but its not the only way to show your appreciation. Depending on the person and your relationship, you might consider these:

• Hand out a small gift card to local favorite coffee shop or fast-food spot in town.
• Bake a batch of cookies or a simple treat and pair it with a handwritten note.
• Leave a box of snacks and bottled drinks out for delivery drivers on busy days leading up to Christmas.

These gestures still send the message that you notice their work and value it, even if you dont have it in your budget to hand them a big cash envelope.

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)

Senator targets corporate owners as complaints surge

• Senator seeks answers from six major investment firms amid rising lot rents and complaints of deteriorating living conditions
• Letters cite growing corporate consolidation in manufactured housing and heightened risks for residents with limited mobility
• Inquiry follows reports of sharp rent increases, alleged retaliation and maintenance failures in communities across New England

U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, is demanding answers from six corporate owners of manufactured housing communities amid mounting concerns about affordability and living conditions for millions of residents.

Hassan sent letters to Alden Global Capital (parent of Homes of America), Patriot Holdings, Philips International, Legacy Communities, the BoaVida Group and Sun Communities, asking each to explain how their business practices are affecting manufactured housing communities in New England. Roughly 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes, commonly located in land-lease communities where residents own their homes but rent the ground beneath them.

Corporate consolidation raises affordability concerns

Hassans letter notes that investment firms have rapidly expanded their ownership of mobile-home parks in recent years, with acquisitions reaching an estimated $9.4 billion in 2021. Between 2019 and 2021, such firms accounted for 23% of manufactured housing community purchases, including properties acquired by Alden Global Capital.

The senator warned that residentswho include significant numbers of seniors, people with disabilities, low-income families, and rural householdshave limited ability to move because manufactured homes are expensive to relocate and often hard to sell. As a result, she said, residents have few if any options when confronted with steep rent hikes, lease changes or other decisions by corporate owners.

Rent hikes far outpace traditional housing

Hassan cited reports showing that rents in manufactured housing communities rose more than five times faster than apartment rents between 2023 and 2024. In Maine, communities owned by the BoaVida Group and Philips International reportedly saw rent increases exceeding 50% since 2021.

Some companies explicitly highlight rent growth as part of their investment strategy. Patriot Holdings, which owns several communities in New England, promotes expected rent increases in line with market demand, which it describes as booming.

The senator also noted recent legal scrutiny: in 2024, Homes of America agreed to repay residents in West Virginia after settling claims over an allegedly unlawful rent increase that plaintiffs called unconscionable.

Allegations of collusion and deteriorating conditions

Beyond rent hikes, Hassan pointed to broader allegations of anticompetitive behavior. A 2023 federal complaint in Illinois accused Sun Communities and others of sharing sensitive, non-public data through a third-party analytics provider to systematically and unlawfully raise lot rents above inflation and historical norms. Attorneys general in Connecticut and Minnesota have launched similar inquiries into investor-owned properties.

Residents have also reported worsening living conditions under some corporate owners. Complaints include insufficient maintenance, staffing cuts, decaying infrastructure, pest infestations, poor water quality and health hazards such as respiratory illness. In New Mexico, residents said Legacy Communities raised rents while allowing property conditions to deteriorate. Similar concerns have been raised at BoaVida and Philips International properties in New England and at Homes of America communities nationwide.

Reports of retaliation and barriers to legal action

Hassan additionally highlighted claims that some firms have sought to intimidate or legally pressure residents who challenge business practices. Residents in West Virginia alleged that Homes of America threatened substantial rent increases unless they waived rights under state law. In another case, the same company reportedly sued a resident for interfering with its contractual relationships after she organized rights-education clinics.

Meanwhile, complex ownership structures and arbitration provisions may hinder residents ability to pursue claims. A study cited by Hassan found that some firms use onerous arbitration clauses that raise costs and reduce procedural protections, while multiple shell companies often obscure who actually owns a community. The Government Accountability Office has similarly warned that ownership information for manufactured housing communities is often limited or opaque.

Inquiry aims to inform congressional oversight

Hassan said the requested information will help Congress better understand how corporate consolidation is affecting affordability and safety in a critical segment of the nations housing stock. Given this impact on our economy and the pressing need to increase access to safe, reliable housing that people can afford, I seek more information on your business practices, she wrote.

The six companies have been asked to respond to the committee with detailed information about their rent-setting practices, ownership structures, maintenance policies and procedures for addressing resident complaints.