The Biden-era cap was rescinded after big banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce objected to it

"Affordability" seems to be the byword in Washington political circles at the moment. Both parties are saying there's not enough of it going around, and they're presenting various proposals to patch things up.

In the latest attempt, three Democratic senators have introduced legislation to revive a Biden-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that would have lowered the cap on credit card late fees to $8.

The Credit Card Fairness Act by Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) would lower the safe harbor dollar amount for late fees to $8, limit future changes to inflation adjustments only and direct future challenges to the D.C. Circuit Court to avoid lawsuits being heard in ultra-right-wing 5th Circuit Court, according toa summary of the bill by the sponsors.

Challenged by banks

The late fee rule was originally implemented under Biden-eraCFPB Director Rohit Chopra but it was challenged by the American Bankers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests who claimed the bureau exceeded its statutory authority. The bureau last year reached an agreement with the bankers and the court to vacate the final rule.

"This is a win for consumers and common sense," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said at the time. "If the CFPBs rule had gone into effect, it would have resulted in more late payments, lower credit scores, higher interest rates and reduced credit access for those who need it most. It would have also penalized the millions of Americans who pay their credit card bills on time and reduced important incentives for consumers to manage their finances."

Consumers currently pay $14 billion per year in credit card late fees, which the senators say pads the profits of the biggest banks. The standard $30 to $41 late fee is up to five times higher than the actual cost for banks of collecting late payments, allowing banks to profit from customers who are struggling to make ends meet. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau previously enacted a rule that capped these fees at $8, which was stalled in litigation brought by the big banks. This legislation would codify the $8 cap in law.

Big banks profiteering off people by charging $41 for a single late credit card payment is absolutely wrong,said Fetterman. At a time when people are struggling to get by, these late fees are only doing more harm. This legislation will protect hardworking Americans from predatory fees, and Ill work with anyone to get this over the finish line.

Consumer groups' endorsement

The bill is endorsed by several consumer advocacy groups, includingAmericans for Financial Reform, the Consumer Federation of America, Groundwork Collaborative, the National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), Public Citizen, and Protect Borrowers.

Excessive credit card late fees bulk up profits for big banks while eating into already strained household budgets,said Ericka Taylor, Co-Executive Director of Americans for Financial Reform. This legislation would cap credit card late fees and make life a little more affordable.

Penalty fees shouldnt be profit centers,said Adam Rust, Director of Financial Services for the Consumer Federation of America. Families shouldnt have to choose between paying an exorbitant late fee or meeting their basic needs. The Credit Card Fairness Act sets a reasonable cap on credit card late fees, restoring a standard of fairness and affordability to the cost of consumer credit.

Banks earn billions of dollars in profits from late fees on families struggling with unaffordable credit card debt. This bill will save over $200 a year on average for the more than 45 million people who are charged late fees,said Lauren Saunders, Associate Director and Director of Federal Advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center.

The truth about burn-in, lifespan, and whether OLED is still worth it

• OLEDs now last longer than most people think Manufacturers claimroughly 815+ years undernormal use; independent testers suggest significantly less under certain conditions.

• Burn-in isnt gone, just situational It mainly affects TVs showing static content for hours daily at high brightness.

• Still a smart buy in 2026 Best-in-class picture quality, but mini-LED makes more sense for bright rooms or tighter budgets.

While shopping for a new TV right now is really smart, the choices have never been more confusing. Between QLED, mini-LED, QD-OLED, QNED, and now Micro RGB displays, the TV aisle has turned into an alphabet soup of competing technologies.

Despite that clutter, OLED TVs remain the gold standard for picture quality, but many buyers worry about its longevity as something called picture burn-in.

That worry was recently explored in a deep dive by SlashGear, which examined how long modern OLED TVs actually last.

So how long can you realistically expect an OLED TV to last?

TV makers have long insisted OLED durability is no longer the problem it once was.

• Samsung estimates OLED panels last between 50,000 and 100,000 hours, which translates to roughly 1020 years of normal viewing.
• LG has claimed its OLED panels can reach 100,000 hours, or about 30 years of typical home use.
• Sony says OLED TVs should last about as long as traditional LCD models.
• TCL pegs OLED lifespan closer to 810 years.

On paper, this all sounds fairly reassuring if youre considering buying an OLED.

But these manufacturer estimates dont tell the whole story. They assume things like normal usage, moderate brightness settings, and proper maintenance. All variables that are fairly subjective and likely to change from viewer to viewer.

Thats where some real-world testing comes in that gives us some interesting insights we can use in our TV buying decisions.

What actual long-term testing reveals

Independent testing paints a more nuanced picture.

The team at RTINGS ran one of the most aggressive longevity tests ever conducted on modern TVs, simulating up to 10 years of home use.

After about 18 months, RTINGS reported that every single OLED TV tested showed some signs of permanent burn-in on the screen.

Interestingly, Samsungs OLED panels performed best after 18 months, while models from Hisense and Vizio showed the most noticeable burn-in.

By the end of the three-year test period, results became even more mixed. LGs G2 OLED reportedly stopped functioning after about 24 months due to dead pixels, while Samsung and Sony OLED models failed earlier due to unrelated component issues like power supply and internet hardware failures.

In other words, burn-in wasnt always the reason an OLED failed, but it did appear across the board under extreme conditions.

Why burn-in still matters but why it matters less than before

Burn-in happens when static images like channel logos or news tickers, remain on the screen long enough to permanently wear down individual pixels.

Older OLEDs were far more vulnerable to this, but modern models include multiple safeguards:

• Pixel-refresh cycles
• Screen-shifting technology
• Automatic brightness limiting
• Panel-wide resets

Today, burn-in is far more likely to affect heavy users who watch the same channel for hours daily or leave static content on screen for long stretches.

Should you buy OLED in 2026? A buyer checklist

Buy OLED if:

• Picture quality matters most. If youre looking for true blacks, strong contrast, and a wide viewing angles for movies, sports, or gaming your best bet is OLED.
• Your viewing is varied. If you tend to rotate your content between streaming, movies, and games, instead of leaving one channel on all day long.
• You dont max brightness 24/7. If youre not a it needs to be really bright viewer youll dramatically reduce the risk for burn-in making OLED a safe choice.
• You keep TVs 812 years. If you tend to buy quality products that you usually keep for a long time, a quality OLED (with normal use), should last a long time.

Think twice if:

• You tend to watch static content for hours daily (news tickers, sports channels, PC desktop use).
• The TV will run all day in a bright room at peak brightness (bars, waiting rooms).
• Budget is tight and mini-LED offers plenty of brightness and longevity for significantly less money.

Google uses a similar business model, though with many more ads per page

• Ads will begin appearing for some U.S. users of ChatGPTs free tier and a new low-cost Go plan

• Higher-priced paid versions of ChatGPT will remain ad-free

• The move marks a strategic shift as OpenAI faces massive long-term AI infrastructure costs

OpenAI will begin testing advertisements in the ChatGPT app for certain U.S. users in the coming weeks, marking a significant change for the company as it seeks to expand revenue beyond subscriptions and prepare for a potential public offering.

The ads will appear for logged-in users of the free version of ChatGPT as well as a newer, lower-cost $8-a-month Go plan. The Go plan launched earlier in India and is now expanding to the U.S., the company said Friday. More expensive paid tiers of ChatGPT will remain free of advertising.

A shift in OpenAIs business model

The decision reflects OpenAIs broader effort to diversify its revenue streams as it faces enormous costs associated with building and operating large-scale artificial intelligence systems.

OpenAI does not expect to be profitable for years and has committed to spending roughly $1.4 trillion on data centers, chips, and other infrastructure needed to support its AI ambitions. Advertising offers a way to offset some of those costs while keeping the product accessible to a large audience.

Until now, OpenAI has relied primarily on subscriptions and enterprise services. The move into advertising represents a reversal of sorts for the company and its leadership.

Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman has previously expressed skepticism about ads, describing them as a last resort. He has also warned that advertising could undermine trust if users believe chatbot responses are influenced by commercial interests.

Still, OpenAI now joins competitors such as Alphabet Inc.s Google, which have begun integrating ads into AI-powered products as usage scales rapidly.

How ads will appear inside ChatGPT

At launch, OpenAI plans to test ads for sponsored products and services that appear at the bottom of relevant ChatGPT responses. The company said ads will be clearly separated from organic chatbot content.

OpenAI argues that advertising could enhance the user experience, particularly for shopping-related queries, by surfacing relevant products and services alongside AI-generated responses.

Our enterprise and subscription businesses are already strong, Fidji Simo, OpenAIs CEO of applications, said in a blog post announcing the change. We believe in having a diverse revenue model where ads can play a part in making intelligence more accessible to everyone.

The company emphasized that the initial rollout is a test and that the ad format may change based on user feedback.

Borrowing from Big Techs playbook

OpenAIs approach mirrors strategies long used by major internet companies such as Meta Platforms Inc. and Google, which subsidize free or low-cost products through targeted advertising.

ChatGPT now has more than 800 million weekly users, giving OpenAI a massive audience attractive to advertisers. Several of the companys executives bring experience from ad-driven platforms.

Safeguards and limits on advertising

OpenAI said ads will not influence how ChatGPT answers user questions. According to the company, chatbot responses will continue to be driven by what is objectively useful, not by advertising relationships.

The company also said it will not share user conversations with advertisers and will avoid showing ads on sensitive topics such as mental health and politics to users it identifies as being under 18.

As we introduce ads, its crucial we preserve what makes ChatGPT valuable in the first place, Simo said. That means you need to trust that ChatGPTs responses are driven by whats objectively useful, never by advertising.

OpenAI said it plans to closely monitor user reaction during the test period and adjust the ad experience accordingly as it weighs how advertising fits into the future of ChatGPT.

As therapy stays out of reach for many, social media and therapy speak is reshaping how we talk about our feelings

• TikTok has become the top source for mental health terminology, as cost keeps many Americans from accessing traditional therapy.

• Therapy speak can help people express emotions but experts warn its often oversimplified or misused online, potentially delaying real care.

• Mental health content on social media can be a starting point, not a substitute, with licensed professionals still key for accurate guidance and support.

Mental health language has officially gone mainstream, and for millions of Americans, social media is becoming the go-to place to learn how to name and explain their emotions.

That shift isnt happening just because its trendy. A new survey from behavioral health providers BreakThrough by BasePoint found that cost is now the biggest barrier keeping people from therapy, with more than half of Americans saying it prevents them from getting professional help.

As a result, many are turning to alternatives like friends, social media, and even AI chatbots for emotional support despite lingering doubts about how accurate or helpful that advice really is. TikTok, in particular, has emerged as the top source for mental health terminology, influencing how people describe everything from stress to trauma.

But is learning therapy speak online actually helping people understand themselves better or is it oversimplifying complex mental health issues? And wheres the line between useful self-awareness and misinformation?

To unpack what this trend means for consumers, ConsumerAffairs spoke with Monica Clayborn, LPC, Vice President of Quality and Outcomes, about why mental health language is everywhere right now and how to use it in ways that support, rather than replace, real care.

The risks

According to Clayborn, the biggest risk in using platforms like TikTok for mental health education is mistaking exposure to mental health content for actual care.

Social media and AI chatbots arent properly equipped to handle real crises, diagnose conditions, or offer treatment, she said. When 73% of adults find online mental health content/speak to be performative or inaccurate, thats a huge red flag for buying in on surface-level advice, or even misinformation that can delay or derail proper care.

Are there concerns?

With many consumers replacing mental health care with social media, Clayborn says there is certainly a cause for concern here.

It would be strange NOT to be concerned, she said. Sure, social media apps are now the top exposure point for mental health language, even for AI chatbot users, but theres a growing gap between terminology and actual understanding.

Knowing the words isnt the same as knowing what they mean, and when to apply them in real life. You have these terms like boundaries or gaslighting that are frequently used out of context, and its taking serious concepts and turning them into trendy buzzwords that can water down their real meaning or foster toxic dynamics. When these words lose their impact, its hard to take what they really are seriously.

Helpful vs. hurtful

If you find yourself down a mental health TikTok rabbit hole, Clayborn suggests being a vigilant online user. She recommends that consumers always verify the source before taking any next steps with the information they get from videos.

Licensed professionals should always be your starting point, she explained. Pay attention and look for disclaimers and citations, and be wary of content that sells you on instant solutions or uses overly simplified language.

If the advice makes you feel empowered or grounded, thats a good sign. If it causes anxiety, guilt, or a sense of urgency, I wouldnt call it helpful; Id call it manipulative.

The cost barrier

With over half of survey respondents saying that cost prevents them from accessing mental health care, Clayborn wants consumers to know that there are other places to turn before TikTok.

Community clinics, peer support groups, and university training programs are all better options if youre looking to save money and still receive care, she said. For more day-to-day support, apps with CBT-based exercises or chat features can be pretty helpful, but they should supplement, not replace, professional care.