Advocates say current rules are outdated and unrealistic

• The U.S. Department of Education will delay plans to seize tax refunds and garnish wages from struggling student loan borrowers

• Consumer advocates say current collection rules are outdated and risk pushing families and seniors into poverty

• The pause renews calls for reforms to reflect todays cost of living

The U.S. Department of Education has announcedthat it will delay plans to resume aggressive debt collection against student loan borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments, including seizing tax refunds and garnishing wages.

The move offers temporary relief to millions of borrowers still struggling with rising living costs after years of pandemic-era payment pauses and policy changes.

Todays announcement throws a lifeline to working and middle class families who are buckling under the weight of outdated student loan policies that dont reflect todays high cost of living and affordability crisis, said Abby Shafroth, managing director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center.

Advocates warn collection rules are decades out of date

Consumer advocates say the departments existing collection policies were set decades ago and have not kept pace with inflation or housing, food, and health care costs.

Under current rules, the Department of Education protects only the first $217.50 per week in wages from garnishment a threshold set in 2009. According to advocates, the buying power of that amount has fallen by more than 30% since then and now sits well below the federal poverty line.

Similarly, the department protects just $750 per month in Social Security benefits from seizure, a figure established in 1996. Today, that amount is less than 60% of the poverty line, putting older borrowers at particular risk.

Without changes, advocates warn that restarting collections largely paused since 2020 could push working families and retirees into poverty.

Calls grow for broader reforms before collections resume

Shafroth said the delay should be followed by structural changes to how the federal government collects student loan debt.

The Department of Educations current collection policies are outdated and can trap people already struggling to keep up with rising costs deeper in debt and even push them into poverty, she said. Thats the opposite of what our financial aid policies are supposed to do.

Consumer advocates are urging the administration to increase the amount of income protected for basic living expenses, shield anti-poverty benefits such as Social Security and the Earned Income Tax Credit from seizure, and cap collections at the amount borrowers are actually behind on payments.

They are also calling for simpler pathways for borrowers who fall behind to enroll in repayment plans or other options that help them manage their loans successfully.

For now, the departments decision delays the resumption of some of the governments most punitive collection tools but advocates say long-term relief will depend on whether those tools are reformed before they are turned back on.

Electrical failures in emergency vehicles top the week's recall list

         Ford (6)
    BMW (4)      Volkswagen Group (4)
    Contenders: Volvo (3), Hyundai (2), Bentley (2), Blue Bird (2), Braun (1)
      

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.