Consumer News: Inflation is cooling, so why is there an ‘affordability crisis?’

But energy and housing costs continue to pressure consumers

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Inflation rose modestly in recent months, with the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increasing 0.2% on a seasonally adjusted basis from September to November 2025.

• Prices were up 2.7% over the past year, marking a slowdown from the 3.0% annual increase recorded through September.

• Data gaps remain because of the federal shutdown, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) did not collect survey data in October 2025 due to a lapse in appropriations.

U.S. inflation showed signs of cooling in late 2025, even as energy costs and some household expenses continued to rise, according to the latest Consumer Price Index report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Over the two-month period from September to November, overall consumer prices increased at a measured pace, reflecting modest gains across several major categories. Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, also rose 0.2% during the same period, suggesting underlying price pressures remained contained.

Shelter costs, a major driver of household expenses, edged up 0.2% over the two months, while food prices rose 0.1%. Energy prices were a notable outlier, climbing 1.1% during the period, driven by higher gasoline and utility costs. At the same time, some categories provided relief for consumers: prices for lodging away from home, recreation, and apparel declined.

Looking at the broader picture, inflation slowed on an annual basis. The all-items CPI rose 2.7% in the 12 months ending in November, down from a 3.0% increase through September. Core inflation increased 2.6% over the past year, slightly below the headline rate.

Restaurant checks rose faster than grocery bills

Food prices continued to rise faster when consumers ate out than when they shopped for groceries. Food away from home increased 3.7% over the year, compared with a 1.9% rise for food at home. Within grocery prices, meats, poultry, fish, and eggs posted one of the largest gains, up 4.7%, while dairy prices declined 1.6%.

Energy costs remained a key pressure point for households. Over the past year, the energy index rose 4.2%, with fuel oil prices jumping more than 11% and electricity costs climbing nearly 7%. Natural gas prices also rose sharply, increasing just over 9% year over year.

The report was affected by the federal government shutdown in October, when BLS was unable to collect survey data. While some non-survey data were later recovered, October CPI figures are unavailable, and November data reflect a partial resumption of collection that began on November 14.

Separate inflation measures tracked similar trends. The CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers rose 2.7% over the past year, while the Chained CPI increased 2.6%, though recent figures for the chained index remain subject to revision.

The survey shows that speed alone failed to deliver customer satisfaction

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Glance releases its 2026 CX Trends Report, revealing how last years rush toward AI reshaped and often damaged customer service experiences

• Survey of more than 600 U.S. consumers shows frustration rising despite faster, automated responses

• Report urges companies to refocus on resolution, trust, and human-supported AI as they plan 2026 CX strategies

Companies are increasing the use of artificial intelligence to assist with customer service and a new report suggests those efforts are not always satisfying for consumers.

Glance, a provider of enterprise cobrowse and guided customer experience technology, has released its 2026 CX Trends Report, offering a clear-eyed assessment of how the customer experience industrys aggressive push into AI-powered service has played out in 2025.

The report, based on a small survey, paints a picture of widening disconnects between the promises of automation and the realities customers encountered. While companies invested heavily in AI tools designed to accelerate service, many customers reported being trapped in loops, forced to repeat themselves across channels, and ultimately left with less confidence in the brands they interacted with.

One of the most interesting findings shows that speed alone failed to deliver satisfaction. Seventy-five percent of respondents said they received fast, AI-driven responses that still left them frustrated.

Instead, customers overwhelmingly prioritized outcomes: 68% said achieving a complete resolution mattered more than how quickly a response arrived.

Risks of overautomation

The report also highlights the loyalty risks tied to over-automation. Nearly nine in 10 consumers said removing access to human support reduced their loyalty to a brand. Only 7% reported that they rarely or never had to repeat information when switching between channels, underscoring persistent breakdowns in omnichannel continuity. More than a third of respondents said AI-based support actively made interactions harder, and a majority expressed a preference for human-first service pathways.

At the same time, the findings suggest customers are not rejecting AI outright. Forty-four percent said they always try self-service options first, and another 50% said they sometimes do signaling strong interest in AI-enabled tools when they are designed to truly resolve issues rather than deflect them.

The industry spent much of 2025 chasing speed and automation, said Tom Martin, CEO of Glance. But our research shows that customers felt increasingly disappointed by digital systems that were supposed to help them. The future isnt AI replacing people its AI strengthening the foundation so humans can deliver clarity, empathy, and trust at the moments that matter.

Problems of implementation

According to the report, many of the problems stemmed from how organizations implemented AI rather than from the technology itself. Bots were often built to reduce contact volume instead of solve problems, while personalization efforts crossed the line into feeling intrusive. Automation also exposed deeper operational weaknesses, including inconsistent data, broken workflows, and fragmented handoffs between channels.

This report doesnt sugarcoat the lessons from 2025, said Heather Nightingale, senior director of Product Marketing at Glance. Were honest about what failed because leaders cant build credible AI strategies without addressing the foundation first. 2026 will belong to companies that refocus on resolution, rehumanize digital experiences, and use AI as a co-pilot rather than a gatekeeper.

Looking ahead, the report outlines how top-performing CX teams are expected to evolve in 2026. Key priorities include building AI on clean, consistent data; deploying intent-aware automation that knows when to escalate to humans; delivering true context continuity across channels; and shifting personalization toward approaches that feel purposeful rather than invasive.

The report also emphasizes empathy as a driver of loyalty and urges companies to move away from vanity metrics in favor of measures tied to retention, repeat engagement, and reduced customer effort.

You dont have to quit caffeine to stop overpaying

• Grocery-store ground roast coffee averaged $9.14/lb in September, up from $6.47/lb a year earlier a 41% jump thats showing up on receipts fast

• Weather-driven supply hits + a surge in wholesale arabica prices pushed costs up, and tariffs added fuel at the worst time. Even with tariff rollbacks, shelf prices usually lag

• Do quick cost-per-cup math (home brew is still far cheaper), buy extra duringsales and freeze abag, and watch the unit price for shrinkflation

If your normal bag of ground coffee is starting to feel like more of a splurge item, youre not imagining things. Federal pricing data shows supermarket coffee is up sharply. As of September, a pound of ground roast coffee averaged about $9.14, up from $6.47 a year earlier. Thats a whopping 41% jump in just 12 months.

Whats behind the coffee spike

Weather problems tightened supply

Coffee is considered a picky crop, and production disruptions like bad weather in the major growing regions, can affect supply quickly. When harvests come up short, roasters and importers scramble, and so costs naturally climb.

Wholesale coffee prices surged

In early 2025, arabica coffee futures pushed above $4.30 per pound at one point, with traders pointing to limited availability and even some panic in the market.

Think of futures prices as a benchmark for what many buyers pay for their beans. So, when you see a big jump like we saw earlier this year, it tends to show up down the road at grocery stores and coffee chains.

Tariffs added cost at the worst time

In April 2025, the U.S. imposed a 10% base tariff on many imports and layered on additional duties that varied by country. These included goods the U.S. doesnt really produce domestically, like coffee.

In mid-November, the White House rolled back tariffs on more than 200 food products, including coffee, with the changes taking effect retroactively.

The National Coffee Association said removing reciprocal tariffs should ease cost pressures for coffee drinkers and the businesses that depend on imports.

Then, on Nov. 21, Reuters reported the administration removed a remaining 40% tariff on many Brazilian agricultural imports, including green coffee beans. This was a big deal because Brazil supplies about a third of U.S. coffee beans.

Why prices may not drop overnight

Even if the tariff line item disappears, retail prices usually lag behind for a while. This is because roasters buy beans months ahead, retailers adjust prices in cycles, and brands rarely cut shelf prices the moment their costs ease.

Coffee shops have nudged prices up, too. Toasts menu data shows the median price of a regular coffee on restaurant menus was $3.57 in October 2025, up 3.2% from a year earlier.

The coffee price playbook for shoppers

Here are five money moves that will help you saveon your next cup:

1. Do the cost-per-cup math (its sobering)

A pound of coffee can make roughly 22 standard 12-ounce cups at home if youre using about 20g per cup.

At $9.14 per pound, thats about 42 cents per cup before milk and sugar versus about $3.50 for a basic caf coffee. I know its boring and you've probably heard it a hundred times, but brew your own cup of joe at home and save big.

2. Buy on deal, then bank the savings

When your coffee go-to brand hits a real sale, grab two bags and freeze one. Sealed coffee holds up well in the freezer, and buying at the low point beats paying whatever the shelf tag says next week.

3. Use store brands strategically

If your go-to brand jumped 30% to 50%, a private-label or club-store option can bring your cost per cup back to earth. Test one bag before you commit, then buy larger sizes when you find a winner.

4. Stop paying the add-on tax at coffee shops

If youre buying out of habit, keep the ritual but downgrade the order: drip instead of latte, fewer pumps, skip the foam. Most of the coffee inflation you feel at cafs comes from extras.

5. Watch for shrinkflation

Coffee brands love to keep the sticker price steady and quietly reduce the ounces. Always compare the unit price (per ounce or per pound) on the shelf tag, not the number printed on the bag.

The price-fixing scheme went on for a decade, the suit charges

• Plaintiffs allege Pepsi and Walmart coordinated pricing to inflate soft drink costs nationwide

• Lawsuit claims Walmart received preferential wholesale prices while rivals paid more

• Case follows FTCs decision to drop a Robinson-Patman Act lawsuit against Pepsi

PepsiCo and Walmart have been accused in a new consumer class action lawsuit of orchestrating a decade-long price-fixing scheme that allegedly inflated the cost of Pepsi soft drinks at retailers across the United States.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in New York, alleges the two companies entered into an unlawful agreement that gave Walmart preferential wholesale pricing on Pepsi products while forcing competing retailers to pay higher prices. Plaintiffs say the arrangement violated federal antitrust law and ultimately harmed consumers by driving up retail prices outside Walmart stores.

Allegations of preferential pricing

According to the complaint, Pepsi offered Walmart favorable pricing and other incentives designed to maintain a consistent price gap that allowed the retail giant to sell Pepsi products at lower prices than its competitors. To preserve that gap, the lawsuit alleges, Pepsi raised wholesale prices charged to other retailers, effectively shifting higher costs onto consumers who did not shop at Walmart.

The plaintiffs contend that the pricing arrangement discouraged competition among retailers and insulated Walmart from price pressure, while smaller chains and independent stores were left at a disadvantage.

Link to prior FTC enforcement

The consumer lawsuit follows the Federal Trade Commissions decision in May to drop a case brought during President Joe Bidens administration accusing Pepsi of violating the Robinson-Patman Act, a 1936 law aimed at preventing discriminatory pricing practices that favor large buyers over smaller competitors.

The FTCs case named Pepsi as the sole defendant and did not include Walmart. In that matter, the agency alleged Pepsi had offered preferential pricing and promotional benefits to Walmart while denying similar terms to other retailers. Pepsi denied wrongdoing, and the case was later withdrawn by the agency.

Plaintiffs in the new lawsuit cite similar conduct, arguing that Pepsis alleged preferential treatment of Walmart went beyond lawful discounting and crossed into anticompetitive coordination.

Proposed nationwide consumer class

The proposed class includes all U.S. consumers who purchased Pepsi soft drinks from non-Walmart retailers since January 2015. The lawsuit seeks damages and other relief on behalf of consumers who allegedly paid higher prices as a result of the claimed scheme.

Pepsi and Walmart have not yet publicly responded to the new lawsuit. The case adds to ongoing scrutiny of pricing practices between major manufacturers and dominant retailers, particularly as regulators and private plaintiffs examine whether discount arrangements unlawfully harm competition and consumers.