Consumer News: That Amazon 'recall alert' text? It’s probably a scam

But theyre still cheaper than a year ago

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The nations average price of gasoline has risen 2.6 cents over the last week and stands at $2.84 per gallon, according to GasBuddydata compiled from more than 12 million individual price reports covering over 150,000 gas stations across the country.

• The national average is up 4.9 cents from a month ago and is 24.5 cents per gallon lower than a year ago.

• The national average price of diesel rose 1.0 centin the last week and stands at $3.624 per gallon.

Gasoline prices are beginning to rise again as seasonal factors and refinery maintenance begin to influence the market, but prices are still lower than they were 12 months ago. Industry analysts say broader oil market dynamics remain relatively stable.

The national average price of gasoline continues to grind higher, and while the pace of increases remains modest for now, upward momentum could accelerate in the coming weeks as refinery maintenance intensifies and the broader transition to summer gasoline begins, Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in this weeks GasBuddy blog.

However, supply-side dynamics could temper that seasonal pressure. If OPEC+ proceeds with resuming production increases following its first-quarter pause, additional barrels could cap crude oils upside and limit the magnitude of the spring rally at the pump. That said, geopolitical tensions particularly between the U.S. and Iran remain an unpredictable variable, injecting risk into the outlook and leaving prices vulnerable to sudden shifts.

Oil markets await clarity

DeHaan says crude oil prices were largely range-bound over the past week as traders monitored nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran. Early Monday trading showed West Texas Intermediate crude up ninecents at $62.98 per barrel, slightly below last Mondays $63.58 opening. Brent crude also rose ninecents to $67.84 per barrel, down from $68.07 a week earlier.

Oil prices have found support from relatively modest inventory builds so far this year. At the same time, expectations of rising output from OPEC+ and non-OPEC producers are limiting further gains.

According to the Energy Information Administrations Weekly Petroleum Status Report for the week ending February 6, 2026, U.S. crude oil inventories rose by 8.5 million barrels and sit about 3% below the seasonal average. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve remained unchanged at 415.2 million barrels.

Plenty of supply

Gasoline inventories increased by 1.2 million barrels and are about 4% above the five-year seasonal average. Distillate inventories, which include diesel, fell by 2.7 million barrels and are roughly 4% below the five-year average.

Refinery utilization slipped onepercentage point to 89.4%, while implied gasoline demand a proxy for retail consumption rose by 147,000 barrels per day to 8.3 million barrels per day. The decline in refinery runs, combined with the seasonal shift toward summer-blend gasoline, could add upward pressure to pump prices in the weeks ahead.

What drivers are paying

The most common price motorists encountered last week was $2.79 per gallon, up 20 cents from the prior week. Other frequently reported prices included $2.89, $2.69, $2.59, and $2.99 per gallon.

The median U.S. gas price stands at $2.77 per gallon, about 10 cents lower than the national average. Prices vary widely: the top 10% of stations average $4.25 per gallon, while the bottom 10% average $2.28.

Oklahoma has the nations lowest statewide average at $2.25 per gallon, followed by Arkansas and Louisiana at $2.43. California continues to post the highest average at $4.50 per gallon, with Hawaii at $4.33 and Washington at $4.07.

Among weekly movers, Michigan saw the largest jump, with prices rising 12.1 cents. Oregon was up 10.1 cents. Meanwhile, Iowa (-9.3 cents), Utah (-8.5 cents), and New Mexico (-8.1 cents) posted the biggest declines.

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.

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.