Consumer News: Consumers started 2026 in a sour mood

Use trust as a guide, not the only reason to buy

• Trust has valuebut so does price: America's most trusted brands have earned loyal followings, but many store brands offer similar quality for less.

• Pay more when it matters: Trusted brands can be worth the extra cost for products involving safety, health, finances, or strong warranty support.

• Shop smarter, not by logo: Always compare the unit price along with ingredients and recent reviews before assuming the biggest brand is the best buy.

A new Morning Consult survey found that Dawn Dish Soap is America's most trusted brand for the second consecutive year.

Heres how the top 10 ranked, followed by their trust score:

• Dawn Dish Soap 60.4

• Band-Aid 59.4

• Google 57.4

• Dove 57.3 (tie)

• PayPal 57.3 (tie)

• The Weather Channel 56.9

• Heinz Ketchup 56.4

• UPS 56.3

• Hershey's 56.1 (tie)

• Kleenex 56.1 (tie)

The rankings are based on how much consumers trust brands to "do what is right." But while trust is valuable, consumer experts say it shouldn't be the only factor driving your buying decisions.

Here's how to use brand trust to shop smarter and potentially save money.

Trust matters most when reliability is critical

There are some purchases where paying for a trusted brand can provide real peace of mind.

Products involving your family's health, safety, or finances often fall into this category. Think smoke detectors, baby products, financial services, medications, or products backed by strong warranties and responsive customer service.

In these situations, a company's long track record and customer support may be worth paying a little extra for.

Pro tip: Before buying an unfamiliar brand, spend a minute reading recent customer reviews. The key is to look for repeated complaints and not just one or two negative experiences.

Don't assume the most trusted brand is always the best value

A trusted brand doesn't automatically mean it's the best buy.

Many store-brand pantry staples, frozen vegetables, paper products, and over-the-counter medications perform just as well as their name-brand counterparts while costing significantly less.

Rather than shopping by logo alone, compare the ingredient list, features, warranty, and unit price. If the products are nearly identical, the less expensive option is often the smarter purchase.

Pro tip: Try replacing just one name-brand item with a store brand on each shopping trip. If your family doesn't notice the difference, you've just found an easy way to lower your grocery bill.

Reputation is earned one purchase at a time

Brands don't build trust through advertising alone. They earn it by consistently delivering products that work as promised.

That's one reason familiar household names continue to rank highly. In many cases, consumers have years, or even decades, of positive experiences with many of these products.

The same principle applies when you're evaluating newer brands.

Look beyond the marketing and ask yourself:

• Does the company stand behind its product?

• Is customer service easy to reach?

• Are warranty claims handled fairly?

• Do recent reviews match the advertising?

Nostalgia can influence buying decisions

Morning Consult also found that several nostalgic brands, including Mr. Pibb, Lunchables, Capri Sun, and Hot Wheels saw some of the biggest gains in consumer trust.

There's nothing wrong with buying products you enjoy, but remember that positive memories can influence purchasing decisions just as much as product quality.

Pro tip: If you're considering switching back to an old favorite, compare today's price and ingredients with competing products before assuming it's still the best value.

Five ways to shop smarterregardless of the brand

• Compare unit prices, not just package prices: A larger package isn't always the better deal. Check the unit price (price per ounce, pound, sheet, or count) listed on the shelf tag to see which option actually costs less.

• Read recent reviews: Focus on customer reviews from the past six months. Manufacturers can change ingredients, materials, or manufacturing processes over time, so older reviews may no longer reflect the current product.

• Look for satisfaction guarantees: A generous return policy or money-back guarantee can make trying a less familiar brand much less risky. If it doesn't meet your expectations, you may be able to return it.

• Compare what's inside: Before paying more for a national brand, compare the ingredient list, nutrition label, materials, or product specifications. In many cases, store brands offer nearly identical products at a significantly lower price.

• Don't let the name make the decision: A familiar logo doesn't automatically mean better quality. Take a few extra minutes to compare reviews, features, warranties, and prices before assuming the biggest brand is the best buy.

The findings suggest that weight changes may influence relationships too

• A new working paper examined whether weight loss from GLP-1 medications is linked to changes in employment and relationships.

• Researchers compared women taking GLP-1s with similar women who wanted to use the medications but had not yet started.

• The findings suggest weight loss may affect new job and relationship opportunities, though the study is an early working paper that has not yet been peer reviewed.

GLP-1 medications, such as those prescribed for weight loss, have become well known for helping people lose significant amounts of weight. But researchers are beginning to ask whether the effects extend beyond physical health and into other parts of everyday life.

A new working paper from Harvard professor Rebecca Diamond explored whether weight loss associated with GLP-1 medications may also influence social and economic outcomes for women.

Rather than focusing on pounds lost or medical benefits, Diamond examined whether women experienced changes in employment or relationships after starting the medications. The paper builds on previous research showing that obesity can carry social and economic disadvantages for women and investigates whether those patterns change following substantial weight loss. Because the paper is an NBER working paper, it is intended to encourage discussion and has not yet undergone peer review.

How the researchers studied the question

To conduct the analysis, the researcher used data from the Understanding America Study, a long-running national survey that follows participants over time.

Instead of comparing GLP-1 users with the general population, the study matched women who started taking GLP-1 medications for weight loss with women who also wanted to begin treatment but had not yet done so. This comparison was designed to make the groups more similar in their motivation to lose weight, helping reduce some of the differences that might otherwise influence the results.

The researcher then tracked participants for six or more quarters roughly 18 months to see whether their employment status or relationship status changed after treatment began. The analysis also distinguished between women who were already employed or partnered and those who were not at the beginning of the study.

What the findings could mean

Among women who were single when the study began, those who started GLP-1 medications were 29 percentage points more likely to get married or begin living with a partner after six or more quarters than comparable women who wanted the medication but had not started it.

Among women who were unemployed at the start of the study, employment increased by 27 percentage points over the same period.

"This pattern helps interpret the female obesity penalty, Diamond wrote. Body weight can matter because it affects health, mobility, productivity, confidence, or because other people attach penalties to a visible trait.

The study did not find evidence that women who were already in relationships were more likely to separate after starting the medication. Likewise, women who were already employed did not experience upward job mobility.

The results here are most consistent with a substantial first-impression obesity penalty, Diamond explained. The response is concentrated where another person is forming a new assessment of the woman a prospective partner or an employer considering an applicant who is not employed and is muted where richer information has already accumulated."

According to Diamond, this pattern is consistent with the idea that some of the economic and social disadvantages associated with obesity may occur during first impressions such as job searches or meeting potential partners rather than through changes in workplace performance or established relationships.

New research suggests diet quality could support brain health despite underlying risk

• A long-term study found that healthier dietary patterns were associated with a lower risk of dementia among older adults.

• The strongest findings were linked to diets with lower inflammatory potential, particularly in people with biological markers associated with Alzheimer's disease.

• While the research cannot prove cause and effect, it suggests that healthy eating may remain an important part of brain health, even for those already at elevated risk.

What we eat has long been linked to overall health, but growing research suggests it may also play a role in keeping the brain healthy as we age.

A new study from researchers at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden adds to that evidence, finding that older adults who more closely followed healthier eating patterns were less likely to develop dementia over time even if blood tests indicated they were already at increased biological risk for Alzheimer's disease.

The findings are especially notable because many dementia prevention studies focus on the general population. This research instead examined whether diet might still make a difference among people with elevated levels of biomarkers linked to Alzheimer's disease and other forms of neurodegeneration.

Researchers found that the most consistent benefits were associated with dietary patterns that have lower inflammatory potential, suggesting that reducing inflammation through diet may be one piece of the puzzle for maintaining brain health.

"Our findings suggest that diet quality, and particularly dietary patterns with inflammatory potential, may be relevant for dementia prevention in people who already show biological signs of increased risk," corresponding author Anja Mrhar, Ph.D. student from University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, said in a news release.

How the researchers studied the connection

The study followed 1,865 adults in Sweden who were at least 60 years old and did not have dementia when the research began. Participants were followed for an average of 8.4 years, with some tracked for nearly 16 years. During that time, 240 participants developed dementia.

Researchers evaluated participants' eating habits using three well-established measures of diet quality: the Alternate Mediterranean Diet (AMED), the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI), and the reversed Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Index (rEDII), which estimates how inflammatory a person's diet may be.

Blood samples were also analyzed for biomarkers associated with Alzheimer's disease and broader neurodegenerative processes, including phosphorylated tau (p-tau217), neurofilament light chain (NfL), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). The researchers then examined whether diet quality influenced dementia risk across different levels of these biomarkers.

What the findings mean for consumers

Overall, the researchers found that healthier diets were associated with a lower risk of developing dementia.

The clearest and most consistent results involved dietary patterns with lower inflammatory potential. Among participants with elevated biomarker levels, greater adherence to a less inflammatory diet was linked to a lower risk of dementia, with some groups experiencing up to about a 30% lower relative risk compared with those whose diets were more inflammatory.

The study was observational, meaning it cannot prove that diet directly prevents dementia. However, the findings suggest that healthy eating may still be beneficial even for older adults who already have biological signs associated with Alzheimer's disease.

According to the researchers, these results support the idea that diet could remain an important part of strategies aimed at reducing dementia risk, while reinforcing the need for additional research to better understand the relationship.

"These findings move us closer to precision nutrition, suggesting that different dietary patterns may be particularly beneficial for different groups of older adults," researcher Adrin Carballo-Casla said in the news release.

A new survey finds that many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, leaving little room to recover when an illness or injury keeps them from working

• Unexpected injuries or illnesses can quickly become financial emergencies, with many workers saying the income loss was worse than they expected.

• Many Americans cope by taking on credit card debt, cutting back on food, or delaying medical care when they're unable to work.

• Experts say building even a small emergency fund and understanding your disability benefits before you need them can help reduce the financial impact of an unexpected health setback.

Getting sick or injured can be stressful enough on its own. But for many Americans, the bigger concern is what happens when they're suddenly unable to work and a paycheck disappears.

With many households already stretched by higher everyday costs, even a short period without income can quickly lead to difficult financial decisions.

A recent survey from Quikaid found that many workers have gone to work despite illness or injury because they simply couldn't afford to take time off.

To better understand how unexpected income loss affects workers and what options may be available ConsumerAffairs spoke with David Wright, CEO of Quikaid, about why so many people are financially vulnerable and what consumers should know before an emergency happens.

Survey highlights

The survey paints a clear picture of how financially vulnerable many workers are when an unexpected illness or injury keeps them off the job. More than one-third (38%) of respondents said they've lost income because of an injury, illness, or ongoing health condition, and nearly three in four (72%) said the financial impact was worse than they expected.

Many workers reported making difficult sacrifices to get by. Forty-two percent said they relied on credit cards during a period of lost income, while an equal share said they cut back on food to make ends meet. About one in four delayed or skipped medical care because of the financial strain, highlighting how income loss can create a cycle where health and finances both suffer.

The survey also found that many workers may be overlooking potential sources of financial support. Nearly half (44%) said they have never seriously explored disability benefits, and many reported they aren't sure whether they would qualify or how to begin the application process.

Ignoring health

Wright said that one of the most surprising findings from the survey was how normal it has become for people to ignore their health so they can continue working.

People arent ignoring their health because they believe its the right thing to do, theyre doing it because they feel they have no other choice, he said. When missing a paycheck feels more risky than leaving an injury or health condition untreated, it highlights just how closely financial security and overall well-being, both physical and mental, are connected.

Despite how normalized this trend has become, Wright warns that there are short- and long-term risks.

Working through an injury or illness may protect your finances in the short term, but it can often lead to much greater costs over time, he said.

Delaying treatment can result in longer recovery periods, more serious health complications, and extended absences from work. Financially, the consequences can include mounting medical bills, growing credit card debt, and lost wages that ultimately far exceed the cost of taking time off when the problem first arises.

Building financial resilience

While theres no way to prevent all accidents or injuries, Wright hopes that these findings encourage more consumers to build up their financial resilience.

Building financial resilience doesnt require saving three to six months worth of expenses overnight, he said/ Even setting aside a small amount consistently can make a meaningful difference when an unexpected disruption occurs.

Its also important to understand the workplace benefits and income protection options available to you. Knowing what resources you have access to before an emergency arises can be just as valuable as the money youve set aside in your savings account.

Meta says the penalty claim is without precedent

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Four states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties from Meta, alleging Facebook and Instagram were deliberately designed to addict young users.

• The amount, disclosed by Meta in a court filing, is nearly equal to the company's roughly $1.5 trillion market value.

• The case, brought by California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, is scheduled for trial in August in federal court in Oakland, California.

Meta Platforms has revealed that it could face an unprecedented $1.4 trillion in penalties if four states prevail in a lawsuit. The complaint accuses the company of designing Facebook and Instagram to be addictive to children and misleading the public about the risks those platforms pose to young users.

The eye-popping figure emerged in a court filing ahead of a trial scheduled to begin in August in federal court in Oakland, Calif. According to Meta, attorneys general from California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey have proposed penalty calculations that could total approximately $1.4 trillion if they succeed on their claims.

The lawsuit is part of a legal campaign against Meta and other social media companies over allegations that they intentionally engineered platforms to maximize engagement among minors while downplaying or concealing evidence that excessive use could contribute to anxiety, depression, self-harm and other mental health problems.

Without precedent

Meta said the proposed penalties are without precedent in consumer protection law and argued that the states' methodology improperly counts the same users multiple times. In its filing, the company described the requested sanctions as unsupported by the evidence and legally flawed.

The states allege that Meta violated consumer protection laws and the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting data from children and teenagers without proper consent while promoting platforms they say were deliberately designed to keep young users engaged through features such as algorithmic recommendations and infinite scrolling.

The $1.4 trillion figure is especially notable because it is close to Meta's current market capitalization, estimated at about $1.5 trillion. While legal experts say such headline figures often represent the maximum theoretical penalties rather than likely outcomes, the disclosure underscores the enormous financial stakes facing the company.

A high-profile case

The upcoming trial is one of the highest-profile cases in a growing wave of litigation against social media companies. More than 2,000 lawsuits have been filed by states, school districts, families and other plaintiffs alleging that social media platforms contributed to a youth mental health crisis by prioritizing user engagement over safety.

Meta has consistently denied wrongdoing, saying it has invested heavily in parental controls, teen safety features and other protections. The company also argues that many of the challenged features are protected under Section 230 of the Communications Act and that the states' legal theories overreach.

The trial is expected to begin in August before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland and could become one of the most consequential legal battles yet over the responsibility of social media companies for the effects of their products on children and teenagers.