Consumer News: Gasoline prices appear to be headed higher

The company has already paid out billions in other lawsuits

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Bayer has outlined a new proposal aimed at resolving thousands of remaining Roundup cancer claims in U.S. courts.

• The plan seeks to limit future liability while providing compensation to current claimants through a structured settlement framework.

• Plaintiffs attorneys and consumer advocates say key legal and scientific questions remain unresolved.

Bayer is advancing a renewed effort to contain its long-running legal battle over allegations that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, unveiling a proposal designed to settle a substantial portion of outstanding claims while establishing limits for future litigation.

The German pharmaceutical and agricultural giant has been grappling with lawsuits tied to glyphosate, Roundups active ingredient, since acquiring Monsanto in 2018 the company that owned Roundup.

Tens of thousands of plaintiffs have alleged that exposure to the herbicide led to non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Bayer has consistently denied that glyphosate is carcinogenic, citing regulatory assessments in the United States and abroad that found the chemical safe when used as directed.

Structured resolution process

Under the latest proposal, Bayer aims to create a structured resolution process for pending cases that have not yet gone to trial or been settled individually. According to company statements, the framework would provide compensation tiers based on medical history, duration of exposure and other risk factors.

The company is also seeking judicial approval for mechanisms that would help manage or limit future claims, potentially through class-based agreements or scientific review panels. It has proposed paying a settlement of $7.25 billion.

Bayer has already paid billions of dollars to resolve earlier waves of litigation, but thousands of cases remain active in state and federal courts. Several high-profile jury verdicts in recent years have awarded substantial damages to plaintiffs, though some awards were later reduced on appeal.

A balancing act

Legal analysts say the companys strategy reflects a balancing act: resolving uncertainty for investors while avoiding admission of liability or setting precedents that could invite additional claims.

Plaintiffs lawyers have expressed cautious skepticism. Some argue that any broad settlement must ensure adequate compensation for individuals with severe diagnoses and allow room for emerging scientific evidence. Others have raised concerns about proposals that could limit access to jury trials for future claimants.

Consumer advocates note that the litigation has unfolded amid ongoing scientific debate. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has maintained that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans when used properly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical in 2015 as probably carcinogenic to humans, a determination that helped fuel the wave of lawsuits.

How to protect your Amazon account from fake recall alerts

• The text claims a recent Amazon order was recalled and links to a very real-looking (but fake) sign-in page.

• Recall messages create panic so youll click fast. Legitimate recalls show up inside your Amazon account and never through random text links.

• Never click the link. Open the Amazon app directly, check your orders, and verify any recall there.

If you recently received a text saying, Your Amazon order has been recalled, be sure you dont click on anything.

Cybersecurity experts say a new wave of phishing is targeting Amazon customers by impersonating official product recall alerts. According to Guardio, scammers are sending highly convincing text messages that claim a recent purchase has been included in an official recall.

The goal isnt to warn you, but rather to steal your Amazon login.

How the scam works

The text typically includes the following:

• References a recent order.
• Claims the item has been recalled for safety reasons.
• Includes a link to start your refund or view recall details."

That link leads to a very real-looking, but completely fake, Amazon login page.

Once you enter your email and password, the scammers can then hijack your account. At which point they can change your password and potentially access your stored payment methods.

The pages often look nearly identical to Amazons real website, which is why this scam is catching people off guard.

Why this tactic is effective

Scammers know that recall notices create urgency and are fairly common these days.

If you think you bought a dangerous product, especially something like electronics, appliances, or childrens items, youre more likely to tap the text and login.

The usual suspects for these are ploys like delivery delays, account suspensions, and refund problems. All things that create some fear and urgency in Amazon shoppers. So, it makes sense that a product recall message would fit right into that playbook.

What Amazon says to all of this

Amazon states it will never ask for your sensitive information, which includes:

• Your password
• One-time passcodes
• Full payment details
• Gift card codes

And most importantly, Amazon will NEVER request any information outside of its official website or mobile app.

The company also encourages customers to report suspicious messages so they can investigate and shut down any phishing networks. In 2024 alone, Amazon says it helped take down more than 55,000 phishing websites and 12,000 scam-related phone numbers.

How to verify a recall safely

If you get a recall text, its smart to follow these steps:

1. Do not click the link.
2. Open the official Amazon app or manually type Amazon.com into your browser.
3. Log in and check your recent orders.
4. Look for recall notifications directly within your account.
5. Contact Amazon Customer Service through the official site if youre unsure.

If theres a legitimate recall, it will appear in your account order history or through official communication channels inside the app.

The bottom line

Product recalls happen all the time, but legitimate recall notices wont demand your password by text message.

But the red flag should be raised when a text message pressures you to click fast and enter account details. Always slow down, verify inside the app, and assume any unsolicited recall text is fake until proven legitimate.

A few extra seconds of caution can save you from losing access to your account and potentially your money.

The plaintiff argued that the name was false advertising

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Buffalo Wild Wings falsely advertised its boneless wings.

• The court ruled that reasonable consumers understand boneless wings to be a style of preparation, not a literal claim about deboned chicken wings.

• The decision reinforces prior rulings that common food terms are judged by everyday understanding, not strict literal interpretation.

A federal judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing Buffalo Wild Wings of false advertising over its popular boneless wings, ruling that the menu items name would not mislead a reasonable consumer.

In a decision issued this week, U.S. District Judge John Tharp concluded that the term boneless wings describes a cooking style rather than a guarantee that the product is derived from a deboned chicken wing. The plaintiff had argued that the menu item made from breaded, sauced chunks of chicken breast meat was misleading because it does not consist of actual chicken wings with bones removed.

No reasonable consumer would believe that boneless wings are wings that have simply had their bones extracted, the judge wrote in the opinion. Instead, the court said, the phrase has become widely understood in American dining culture to refer to bite-sized pieces of white meat chicken prepared in the style of traditional wings.

The complaint

The lawsuit, filed in 2025, claimed that Buffalo Wild Wings marketing and menu descriptions deceived customers into thinking they were ordering deboned wings rather than what the complaint characterized as chicken nuggets. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of similarly situated customers nationwide.

Attorneys for Buffalo Wild Wings countered that the term boneless wings has been used for decades across the restaurant industry and is commonly understood to distinguish the product from traditional bone-in wings. They argued that the claim relied on an overly literal reading of the menu.

The court agreed with the restaurant chain, comparing the naming dispute to other food items whose names do not strictly describe their ingredients or form. The opinion referenced examples such as chicken fingers and hamburgers, noting that consumers do not expect those products to contain fingers or ham.

Reasonable consumer standard

Legal analysts say the ruling fits within a broader trend of courts dismissing consumer protection lawsuits that hinge on hyper-literal interpretations of food labeling.

Some legal analysts have noted that judges generally apply a reasonable consumerstandard in these types of lawsuits. They pose the question of whether an ordinary consumer would actually be misled, not whether a term could be dissected into a technically inaccurate meaning.

Buffalo Wild Wings, headquartered in Atlanta and owned by Inspire Brands, welcomed the decision. In a statement, the company said it was pleased the court recognized that its menu descriptions are clear and consistent with industry norms.

Our guests understand that boneless wings are made from premium white meat chicken and prepared in the flavor styles they love, the statement said.

The company has already paid out billions in other lawsuits

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Bayer has outlined a new proposal aimed at resolving thousands of remaining Roundup cancer claims in U.S. courts.

• The plan seeks to limit future liability while providing compensation to current claimants through a structured settlement framework.

• Plaintiffs attorneys and consumer advocates say key legal and scientific questions remain unresolved.

Bayer is advancing a renewed effort to contain its long-running legal battle over allegations that its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, unveiling a proposal designed to settle a substantial portion of outstanding claims while establishing limits for future litigation.

The German pharmaceutical and agricultural giant has been grappling with lawsuits tied to glyphosate, Roundups active ingredient, since acquiring Monsanto in 2018 the company that owned Roundup.

Tens of thousands of plaintiffs have alleged that exposure to the herbicide led to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer has consistently denied that glyphosate is carcinogenic, citing regulatory assessments in the United States and abroad that found the chemical safe when used as directed.

Structured resolution process

Under the latest proposal, Bayer aims to create a structured resolution process for pending cases that have not yet gone to trial or been settled individually. According to company statements, the framework would provide compensation tiers based on medical history, duration of exposure and other risk factors.

The company is also seeking judicial approval for mechanisms that would help manage or limit future claims, potentially through class-based agreements or scientific review panels. It has proposed paying a settlement of $7.25 billion.

Bayer has already paid billions of dollars to resolve earlier waves of litigation, but thousands of cases remain active in state and federal courts. Several high-profile jury verdicts in recent years have awarded substantial damages to plaintiffs, though some awards were later reduced on appeal.

A balancing act

Legal analysts say the companys strategy reflects a balancing act: resolving uncertainty for investors while avoiding admission of liability or setting precedents that could invite additional claims.

Plaintiffs lawyers have expressed cautious skepticism. Some argue that any broad settlement must ensure adequate compensation for individuals with severe diagnoses and allow room for emerging scientific evidence. Others have raised concerns about proposals that could limit access to jury trials for future claimants.

Consumer advocates note that the litigation has unfolded amid ongoing scientific debate. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has maintained that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans when used properly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical in 2015 as probably carcinogenic to humans, a determination that helped fuel the wave of lawsuits.