Consumer News: FBI warns consumers about new and increasingly common holiday

More than 80% of all new 2024 Dodge Hornet Plug-in Hybrid models remain unsold

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Dealers are struggling to clear out leftover 2024 models especially from Stellantis brands

• Some models still have more than 80% of their 2024 inventory unsold, creating major price-cutting opportunities

• EVs and luxury SUVs are also lingering on lots, giving shoppers unusual leverage heading into year-end

Car dealers usually roll out special deals on cars and trucks for the end-of-the-year holidays. This year, the deals may be the best in years, thanks to slow car and truck sales during 2025

A surprising number of 2024 vehicles are still sitting on dealer lots as 2025 draws to a close. According to a new iSeeCars analysis, several Stellantis models, along with a mix of SUVs, EVs, and luxury vehicles, have unusually high leftover inventory, signaling that dealers may be open to aggressive price negotiations.

Stellantis leads the pack in leftovers

They may be last years models but theyre still new cars, with some selling at close to used car prices. The most striking finding: 82.1% of all new 2024 Dodge Hornet Plug-in Hybrid models remain unsold, compared to an industry average of just 0.4%. That means supply has far outpaced demand for the compact SUV.

Other Stellantis brands are also struggling:

• Jeep Grand Cherokee: 70.8% still on lots

• Alfa Romeo Tonale Hybrid: 46.8% remaining

• Dodge Hornet (gas version): 26.3% unsold

These high leftovers likely give buyers more bargaining power. Dealers are now sitting on significant 2024 inventory for vehicles like the Dodge Hornet, creating a window where aggressive pricing or other incentives are the only way to move those cars, said iSeeCars Executive Analyst Karl Brauer.

Top 10 models with the most leftover 2024 inventory

1. Dodge Hornet Plug-in Hybrid 82.1% (Avg. $41,166)

2. Jeep Grand Cherokee 70.8% (Avg. $64,014)

3. Alfa Romeo Tonale Hybrid 46.8% (Avg. $51,917)

4. Chevrolet Malibu 31.0% (Avg. $26,760)

5. Dodge Hornet 26.3% (Avg. $31,799)

6. Jeep Grand Wagoneer L 24.1% (Avg. $92,497)

7. Genesis GV60 21.8% (Avg. $57,764)

8. Dodge Charger 20.9% (Avg. $59,388)

9. Nissan Z 18.8% (Avg. $53,289)

10. Jeep Wrangler Plug-in Hybrid 18.2% (Avg. $60,740)

In total, 23 models show significantly above-average leftover inventory.

Luxury SUVs go begging

Seventeen SUVs have at least 5% of their 2024 supply still unsold, and 12 of them cost more than $50,000 on average an indicator that price may be driving slower sales.

Notable examples:

• Jeep Grand Wagoneer L: $92,497 average price

• Maserati Grecale: $89,870 average price

Even though SUVs remain popular, many shoppers are clearly resistant to paying luxury prices for an outgoing model year.

For consumers seeking a deal on a new SUV, especially premium models over $50,000, there are plenty of options to consider, Brauer said.

EV buyers have rare negotiating power

Electric vehicles also show higher levels of leftover stock, averaging 1.3% more than triple the overall 2024 average. Four EVs in particular still have 5% to 22% of their 2024 inventory available:

• Genesis GV60 21.8%

• Dodge Charger EV 20.9%

• Chevrolet Silverado EV 11.9%

• GMC Hummer EV SUV 5.5%

Even with the $7,500 federal EV tax incentive, many of these models failed to sell quickly. This is an opportunity for EV buyers to negotiate, Brauer said.

2025 models may also become leftovers

The study also examined which 2025 models may soon slip into leftover status. Twenty-two vehicles currently have 60% to 90% of their 2025 inventory still on the lot a sign dealers may want to clear space ahead of 2026.

The biggest standouts include:

• BMW i4 89.2% of inventory remaining

• Lexus GX 550 87.8%

• Subaru BRZ 87.1%

• Lexus LX 600 83.9%

As December 31st approaches, dealers are motivated to hit month-, quarter-, and year-end sales targets, Brauer said. Buyers may be able to negotiate lower prices on these vehicles.

For consumers, this unusual backlog of inventory may bea rare opportunity.

Instacart claims the price differences stem from 'price tests,' not dynamic, real-time price changes

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Independent experiment shows Instacart displayed multiple prices for the same grocery items to different shoppers at the same time.

• Nearly three-quarters of tested items appeared at two to five different price points, with basket totals varying by an average of 7%.

• Researchers say opaque pricing practices could cost a typical family as much as $1,200 a year and undermine trust in the grocery market.

A new multi-city experiment suggests that Instacart may be showing different prices to different customers for the exact same grocery items, raising concerns about transparency in one of the fastest-growing sectors of the food economy.

The study, conducted by Groundwork Collaborative, Consumer Reports, and More Perfect Union, enlisted 437 shoppers to perform synchronized live tests on Instacart in four U.S. cities.

Each participant added identical items from the same stores to their Instacart carts at the same time, stopping just short of placing an order. Researchers documented the prices each shopper saw and analyzed how widely they varied.

Their findings point to pervasive price variability that researchers argue could amount to real-time pricing experiments by the platformones consumers never consented to and may not even detect.

Different shoppers, different prices

In one hypothetical scenario offered by researchers, two customers walk into the same grocery store and pick up the same box of Cheeriosonly to be charged different amounts at checkout. That scenario, they say, is no longer hypothetical in the world of online grocery shopping.

According to the study:

• 74% of all tested grocery items appeared on Instacart at multiple prices during the experiment.

• Some products showed as many as five different prices at the same store at the same time.

• A dozen Lucerne eggs, for example, ranged from $3.99 to $4.79 on Instacart at a Safeway in Washington, D.C.

• At a Safeway in Seattle, a 10-count box of Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars showed prices of $19.43, $19.99, and $21.99.

On average, items with price variation showed a 13% difference between the lowest and highest prices. In extreme cases, disparities reached 23%, such as a box of Signature SELECT Corn Flakes in D.C. that appeared at $2.99, $3.49, and $3.69 depending on the shopper.

Basket totals varied too by as much as $39

Pricing discrepancies werent limited to individual items. Entire grocery baskets fluctuated from shopper to shoppereven when the baskets were identical.

At a Safeway in Seattle, the exact same grocery list generated totals of $114.34, $119.85, and $123.93. At a Target in North Canton, Ohio, shoppers saw prices ranging from $84.43 to $90.47 for the same basket.

On average, basket totals differed by about 7%.

Based on Instacarts estimate of what a typical household of four spends on groceries annually, that 7% swing could translate into roughly $1,200 a year in additional costs, depending on which prices a family happens to be shown.

Company response

Instacart claims the price differences stem from price tests not dynamic, real-time price changes based on who you are.The company says these tests apply only for a small group of its retail partners roughly 10 partners, according to its statement.

Instacart argues that it does not base prices on personal or behavioral characteristics of shoppers.

However, the organizations behind the study warn that as companies like Instacart adopt or refine technologies that allow for dynamic or personalized pricing, the result is an erosion of two long-standing assumptions in consumer markets:

• Prices should be transparent, and

• Customers should pay the same amount for the same product.

When shoppers cant trust prices to be consistent or comparable, the researchers argue, they lose the ability to budget effectively or comparison-shopcore functions of a fair marketplace.

The report concludes that nontransparent pricing experiments arent just blowing a hole in families wallets. They also jeopardize the trust that underpins a functioning market, potentially allowing retailers or platforms to extract higher margins from unwitting consumers.

A new report shows a widening financial gap, despite widespread confidence in money management

• Findings from a recent report found that women save 45% less than men, reporting higher financial anxiety and lower satisfaction with their money situation.

• Social pressures, caregiving roles, and financial FOMO are major drivers behind the savings gap.

• AI tools may help bridge the gap, offering personalized guidance, habit-building tools, and greater confidence for users who struggle with saving.

Though many young adults say they feel pretty confident managing their money, a new report suggests that confidence isnt translating into financial stability especially for women.

According to new research from Cleo, women are saving 45% less than men each month, putting away about $166 compared to mens $319.

That gap doesnt just show up in bank accounts; it shows up in stress levels, too. Women reported feeling significantly more anxious and less satisfied with their financial situation, highlighting just how uneven the path to financial wellness has become.

To break down these findings, and offer concrete solutions for consumers, ConsumerAffairs interviewed Rob Torres, Lead Financial Expert at Cleo.

Why are women saving less than men?

Torres broke down why this large disparity exists between mens and womens savings accounts.

Several factors are driving the savings gap between men and women, including higher emotional and financial caregiving pressures, Torres explained. Women often face increased anxiety around money and carry greater responsibility for supporting others, which can make it harder to build consistent savings.

Social media is also a factor. Curated online lifestyles may pressure women, who already report lower financial satisfaction, to spend rather than save, undermining long-term money goals.

Bridging the financial health gap

Based on these findings, Torres shared some of the tangible ways that consumers can strengthen their financial health.

We need money tools that actually help women and consumers understand and plan for cost volatility not just statically track spending habits, he said. In order for real change to happen, there has to be an increased focus on behavioral finance. This teaches consumers how to manage impulses, avoid financial FOMO and stay consistent with savings goals.

As a society, we also need greater transparency and normalized conversations about money including debt, struggles, and tradeoffs which are often considered taboo and leave women without relatable benchmarks. Everyones financial situation is different and unique which is why personalized frameworks that align financial behaviors with individual values and goals are more effective than social comparisons seen on social media.

Utilizing AI tools

The Cleo report found that nearly one in four respondents are open to using AI for financial support, signaling a growing trust in digital coaching. Torres explained that these tools can help consumers feel more confident in managing their money.

AI can break cycles of overspending and undersaving by offering personalized insights, helping users understand what they can afford, what can wait, and what aligns with their actual money goals, he said.

Predictive features can warn users about upcoming expenses, reducing the unpredictability that drives anxiety. Habit-building tools and gentle nudges support consistent savingparticularly valuable for users who struggle with self-discipline. AI also provides judgment-free emotional reinforcement, validating decisions and building confidence over time.

A biotech company launches the first study of a weight-loss implant designed specifically for pets

• A pharmaceutical company has begun testing the first GLP-1 weight-loss therapy designed specifically for cats.

• The implant, called OKV-119, slowly releases medication that may curb appetite and support safe weight loss.

• The first cat has officially been dosed in the MEOW-1 study, kicking off clinical trials in real household pets.

For years, pet parents have struggled with the same frustrating cycle: their cat gains weight, they try to cut back on food, the cat protests loudly, and the whole plan falls apart. Anyone with a chubby cat knows how hard it can be to manage feline obesity and how quickly those extra pounds can lead to diabetes, joint stress, and shorter lifespans.

Now, a biotech company called OKAVA is hoping to offer a new option to pet parents.

The company has officially dosed the first cat in a brand-new clinical trial testing OKV-119, the worlds first GLP-1based weight-loss therapy developed for pets. The study, MEOW-1, brings a type of medication that transformed human weight-loss trends into the veterinary world but in a form that fits cats lifestyles much better.

Instead of a pill or injection, OKV-119 is a tiny implant placed under a cats skin by a veterinarian. Once inserted, it slowly releases medication over several months. If it works the way researchers hope, it could gently reduce appetite and help overweight cats lose weight without major daily effort from owners.

"Caloric restriction, or fasting, is one of the most well-established interventions for extending lifespan and improving metabolic health in cats," Michael Klotsman, PhD, MBA, CEO of OKAVA, said in a news release

"But its also one of the hardest to maintain. OKV-119 is designed to mimic many of the physiological effects of fasting improved insulin sensitivity, reduced fat mass, and more efficient energy metabolism without requiring significant changes in feeding routines or disrupting the humananimal bond that often centers around food."

How the implant works and what the trial will test

GLP-1 medications have become famous for helping people lose weight by reducing hunger and affecting how the body handles energy.

OKAVAs idea is similar, but tailored to pets: a long-acting implant that quietly does the work in the background.

The MEOW-1 study will follow real household cats who are overweight or obese. Researchers will track how the implant behaves in everyday life how well cats tolerate it, whether it affects appetite, and most importantly, whether it helps them shed weight safely over time. Because the medication releases gradually, the goal is slow, steady progress rather than dramatic or rapid changes.

The hope is that this approach could make weight management far more practical for pet parents who struggle with portion control, multi-cat households, or demanding feline personalities. If successful, OKV-119 could one day give veterinarians a brand-new tool for tackling one of the most common and preventable pet health issues.