Consumer News: Allegiant Air and Sun Country plan to merge

The 2025 inflation rate was 2.7%

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Inflation picked up modestly in December, with the overall Consumer Price Index rising 0.3% for the month and 2.7% over the past year.

• The sharpest price increases were seen in recreation, airline fares, shelter, and food-related categories.

• Several key prices fell or barely moved, including gasoline, eggs, used vehicles, communication services, and new cars.

Prices paid by U.S. consumers rose at a steady pace in December, but the details show a widening gap between the items rising fastest and those offering some relief.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that shelter costs were the single biggest contributor to Decembers increase in the Consumer Price Index, climbing 0.4% for the month and 3.2% over the past year. Rent and owners equivalent rent both rose 0.3%, while lodging away from home jumped a notable 2.9% in just one month.

The CPI rose 0.3% in December. For 2025, the inflation rate was 2.7%.

Among the fastest-rising categories, recreation prices surged 1.2% in December, the largest one-month increase ever recorded for that index. Airline fares jumped 5.2%, marking one of the steepest increases consumers faced during the month. Medical care services also continued to climb, with hospital services rising 1.0% and overall medical care up 0.4%.

Food prices still rising

Food prices were another major pressure point. Grocery store prices rose 0.7% in December, matching the increase for dining out. Within grocery stores, other food at home climbed 1.6%, dairy products rose 0.9%, and cereals and bakery items increased 0.6%. Over the past year, food away from home rose 4.1%, led by a 4.9% increase in full-service restaurant meals.

Energy costs were mixed but still higher overall. Natural gas prices spiked 4.4% in December and are up 10.8% over the past year, making them one of the fastest-rising household expenses. Electricity prices, though down slightly for the month, are still up 6.7% year over year.

What prices are going down

At the other end of the spectrum, several prices moved lower or barely changed, easing pressure in specific areas. Gasoline prices fell 0.5% in December and are down 3.4% from a year earlier. Egg prices plunged 8.2% in a single month, helping pull down the broader meats, poultry, fish, and eggs category.

Big-ticket items also showed weakness. Used cars and trucks dropped 1.1% in December, while new vehicle prices were unchanged. Communication services fell sharply, down 1.9% for the month, and household furnishings and operations declined 0.5%.

Taken together, the data show inflation that remains contained overall but unevenly distributed. Essentials such as housing, food, and utilities continue to rise faster than average, while discretionary and goods-related categories from vehicles to electronics and communication services are providing the most relief for consumers.

Bipartisan House bill would make canceling as easy as signing up

Americans are losing hundreds of dollars a year on subscriptions they forget to cancel or cant easily escape.
A federal court ruling has stalled the FTCs click to cancel consumer protection rule.
A bipartisan House bill aims to make cancelling subscriptions as easy as signing up.

Forgotten subscriptions cost consumers billions

The average American household is losing significant money each year to subscriptions they no longer use or never intended to keep, even as federal regulators remain blocked from enforcing rules designed to curb the practice.

Multiple surveys show consumers routinely continue paying for streaming services, apps and digital memberships long after theyve stopped using them. An analysis cited by StudyFinds estimated the average U.S. household wastes about $127 annually on unused subscriptions, while a 2025 CNET survey suggested losses could reach $204 a year.

Younger consumers appear especially affected. According to CNET, Gen Z subscribers lose an average of $276 annually as they juggle multiple platforms and trial offers, according to a report in The Guardian.

A $5, $15, or $50 monthly subscription may not feel like much but over a year, that can be $600 or more, Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat, said. With two or three subscriptions, some people can easily lose over $1,000 a year.

Bipartisan bill targets cancellation hurdles

With regulatory action stalled, Takano and Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, are reintroducing the Unsubscribe Act today. The legislation would prohibit companies from using deliberately complex cancellation processes and require that cancelling a subscription be no more difficult than signing up.

Takano has introduced versions of the bill since 2017, but this marks the first time it has drawn a Republican co-sponsor.

Cancelling a subscription should be just as easy as signing up for one, Takano told the Guardian. These marketing techniques rely on the fact that people are busy that theyll forget they entered a trial period.

Under the proposal, companies would be required to obtain explicit consumer consent before charging customers after a free or discounted trial ends. The bill would also ban automatic enrollment in contracts and require sellers to provide periodic notices reminding customers of ongoing charges and how to cancel.

FTC rule remains blocked by court decision

The renewed legislative push comes as the Federal Trade Commission quietly seeks public input on restoring its click to cancel rule, which was overturned in July by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court ruled that the FTC failed to produce a required economic impact analysis, a procedural flaw that invalidated the rule. The judges did not rule on the substance of the consumer protections themselves.

Consumer advocates argue the decision left millions of Americans exposed to manipulative subscription practices. Takano said the complexity of cancellation systems is often intentional.

Companies can predict that a certain percentage of consumers will overlook the trial ending, and they profit from that, he said. Consumers often discover that cancelling requires many more steps than signing up sometimes even mailing a physical letter.

Industry opposition and enforcement workarounds

The Unsubscribe Act has drawn endorsements from consumer advocacy groups including the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen and the National Consumer League. However, it faces opposition from major industry groups that field large teams of lobbyists to charm and cudgel Congress.

The Internet and Television Association, which represents large cable providers, has previously argued that the FTCs click-to-cancel rule could burden, confuse, and harm consumers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and trade groups representing telecom, security and online advertising companies challenged the original FTC rule in court, arguing regulators exceeded their authority.

Despite the court setback, the FTC has continued pursuing subscription-related enforcement actions under other laws. In September, the agency secured a $7.5 million settlement with an education technology company over deceptive cancellation practices, citing the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act.

Renewed pressure on regulators

Consumer groups formally petitioned the FTC in November to reopen the click-to-cancel rulemaking process, arguing the courts decision addressed only procedural issues. The agency published the petition in the Federal Register last month and accepted public comments through January 2.

The FTCs rule was overturned on a technicality, Takano said. This bill makes the law clear to the courts and the business community: companies have to play fair.

Heres a cleanWhat to do consumer sidebaryou can drop alongside the story. Its written to stand alone and uses sentence-case heads.

What to do if youre stuck paying for unwanted subscriptions

Audit your subscriptions regularly
Review bank and credit card statements every few months for recurring charges. Look for small monthly fees that can be easy to miss but add up over time.

Cancel directly through your account when possible
Many subscriptions can be canceled through online account settings, even if companies make the option hard to find. Search for cancel, manage subscription, or billing in account menus.

Check app store subscriptions
If you signed up through Apples App Store or Google Play, cancellations often must be handled through those platforms rather than the company itself.

Document cancellation attempts
Take screenshots, save confirmation emails, and keep records of dates and times if you encounter obstacles. Documentation can help if charges continue after you cancel.

Dispute improper charges
If a company continues billing after cancellation, contact your bank or credit card issuer to dispute the charge. Some issuers allow recurring charges to be blocked.

Watch free trials closely
Set calendar reminders for trial end dates. Many companies rely on consumers forgetting when a trial converts into a paid subscription.

File a complaint if necessary
Consumers can submit complaints to the Federal Trade Commission at reportfraud.ftc.gov if they believe a company is using deceptive subscription practices.

It calls for more scientific review

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) supports the overall eating pattern in the newly released 20252030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), which emphasize minimally processed, nutrient-dense foods and limits on added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat.

• ASN warns that changes to the long-standing scientific review process behind the guidelines risk undermining public trust in nutrition science and creating confusion about dietary advice.

• The organization is calling for greater transparency, clearer messaging, and increased federal investment in nutrition research to strengthen future dietary guidance.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is shaking up the food industry most recently reshuffling the food pyramid, putting meat and saturated fat at the top.

The American Society for Nutrition is offering qualified support for the newly released 20252030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, applauding their focus on whole, minimally processed foods. But the organization is raising serious concerns about how the guidelines were developed.

In a statement responding to the new guidelines, ASN said it agrees with the broad dietary pattern promoted by federal health officialsone that prioritizes nutrient-dense foods and limits added sugars, sodium, and saturated fats. Such approaches, the organization noted, are strongly linked to improved long-term health outcomes, particularly when they reduce reliance on highly processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages.

A change in process

At the same time, ASN expressed alarm over what it described as a major departure from the established, science-based process traditionally used to develop the Dietary Guidelines. Instead of relying primarily on the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), the federal government introduced a separate document, the Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

According to ASN, this shift raises questions about transparency and rigor. The organization said there is little clarity about the methods, objectives, or timelines used to produce the new scientific foundation report, and warned that the approach diverges from the National Academies of Sciencesrecommended standards designed to build public trust.

For decades, the DGACs scientific report has served as the backbone of the Dietary Guidelines, ASN said.

That report is produced by an independent panel of experts who conduct a systematic and transparent review of the evidence. ASN strongly endorsed the work of the 2025 DGAC, which included many of its members and other nutrition scientists who volunteered significant time to evaluate research and develop evidence-based recommendations.

Possible confusion

While ASN also acknowledged and respected the contributions of ASN members who served as authors of the new scientific foundation report, it cautioned that introducing parallel reviews risks confusing both policymakers and the public.

That confusion, ASN said, is already evident in some of the final guidance. The DGACs scientific review found strong evidence that reducing saturated fat intake lowers cardiovascular disease risk.

Although the 20252030 DGAs retain the long-standing recommendation to limit saturated fat to no more than 10% of daily calories, ASN noted that the guidelines also appear to encourage greater consumption of foods such as butter and beef tallow, which are high in saturated fat.

Such mixed messaging, ASN warned, could make it harder for consumers to interpret and follow the guidelines in ways that support long-term health.

Beyond scientific process issues, ASN emphasized that dietary guidance must be practical and equitable to improve public health. Clear recommendations, the group said, must be paired with policies and food environments that make healthy choices accessible and affordable for all Americans.

Customers nationwide will get hundreds of millions of dollars

• Capital One will pay $425 million in restitution and raise interest rates for affected savings customers

• The money willl go to consumers who held 360 Savings accounts

• The deal follows objections by New York Attorney General Letitia James to an earlier, smaller settlement

New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday praised a revised settlement with Capital One that will return hundreds of millions of dollars to customers who were allegedly shortchanged on interest payments for years.

Under the agreement, Capital One will provide $425 million in restitution to customers nationwide, including an estimated $34 million to New Yorkers who held 360 Savings accounts. The settlement also requires the bank to raise interest rates for those accounts, ending what state officials described as a misleading two-tier savings system.

The deal more than doubles the value of an earlier proposed class action settlement that James and a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general successfully challenged in court.

Allegations of misleading savings customers

James sued Capital One in May, accusing the bank of misleading customers by marketing its 360 Savings accounts as high interest products that would outperform average savings accounts.

According to the lawsuit, Capital One kept interest rates on 360 Savings accounts artificially low even as national interest rates began climbing in 2022. At the same time, the bank introduced a nearly identical product 360 Performance Savings that offered significantly higher rates, at one point more than 14 times higher than those paid to existing 360 Savings customers.

State officials said the practice allowed Capital One to avoid paying higher interest to long-time customers while steering new deposits into the higher-yield account.

Capital One customers were counting on growing their savings accounts, but their bank misled them and cheated them out of valuable interest payments for years, James said in a statement. Today we are delivering justice for those customers nationwide.

Court rejects earlier deal

In September, James led a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief opposing an earlier proposed settlement in the class action case.

That deal would have provided less than $300 million in restitution and would have allowed Capital One to continue paying lower interest rates on 360 Savings accounts. After the objections were filed, the court rejected the proposed settlement.

The newly negotiated agreement, which received preliminary court approval on Monday, significantly expands consumer relief.

Interest rates must now match

In addition to the $425 million restitution fund, the settlement requires Capital One to match interest rates between its 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings accounts going forward.

State officials estimate that the change will provide an additional $530 million in future interest payments to consumers nationwide, effectively dismantling the two-tier system at the center of the lawsuit.

The Office of the Attorney General said it will voluntarily dismiss its case against Capital One if the revised settlement receives final court approval and takes effect.

Final approval of the settlement is still pending, but if approved, payments to affected consumers would follow under the terms set by the court.