Consumer News: Why Costco gas is suddenly looking smarter as prices climb

Scammers usually hang up when asked to identify themselves

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Call screening tools are becoming a frontline defense against scam calls and robocalls.

• New built-in features from Apple and Google can automatically ask unknown callers to identify themselves.

• Third-party apps are expanding the concept with AI assistants that filter, transcribe, and block suspicious calls.

Americans are no strangers to unwanted calls. From fake IRS threats to your package is delayed , robocalls remain one of the most persistent annoyances and risks consumers face.

Now, a new wave of call screening technology aims to stop those calls before they ever reach you. Both smartphone makers and app developers are leaning into a simple idea: make unknown callers prove theyre legitimate before your phone even rings.

How call screening works

Call screening flips the traditional phone experience. Instead of your phone ringing first, the system answers unknown calls automatically and asks the caller to state their name and reason for calling.

You then see that information often as a live transcript and decide whether to:

• Answer the call

• Send it to voicemail

• Block it entirely

The goal is straightforward: Scammers and robocall systems typically wont respond to prompts or provide meaningful answers, making them easier to filter out.

Built-in features from Apple and Google

Major phone makers are now building this technology directly into their devices.

Apple has introduced call screening features that automatically intercept unknown callers and request identifying information. Users can review the callers response in real time before choosing to pick up.

Googles version, powered by Google Assistant, goes a step further by interacting with callers and transcribing responses instantly. It can also suggest whether a call isspam based on what the caller says or doesnt say.

These built-in tools are appealing because they dont require downloading additional apps and are tightly integrated with the phones operating system.

Third-party apps add AI to the mix

Several apps are expanding on call screening with more advanced features:

• Truecaller Assistant uses AI to answer calls and summarize what the caller wants.

• RoboKiller screens calls and can block known scam numbers, while wasting robocallers time with automated responses.

• KONTXT and similar apps act as virtual receptionists, handling unknown calls and filtering out suspicious ones.

Many of these apps maintain large databases of known scam numbers, adding another layer of protection.

Why scammers struggle with screening

Call screening works particularly well against scam calls for a few reasons:

• Robocall systems often cant respond to open-ended questions like What are you calling about?

• Scammers rely on urgency and surprise, which screening removes by giving you time to evaluate the call.

• Callers who refuse to identify themselves are easy to ignore or block.

In short, screening forces friction into a system that scammers depend on being fast and automated.

What consumers should know

While call screening can significantly reduce unwanted calls, its not foolproof.

Legitimate callers like doctors offices or delivery drivers may not always respond clearly, and some users worry about missing important calls. Others may find the feature unfamiliar or confusing at first.

Still, for many consumers, the tradeoff is worth it.

Call screening represents a shift in how we handle unknown calls from reactive to proactive. Instead of deciding whether to answer after your phone rings, you can now decide before you ever pick up.

As scam calls continue to evolve, tools that put control back in consumers hands may become less of a luxury and more of a necessity.

The two issues in question both increase the risk of an accident

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Ford is recalling more than 260,000 vehicles due to a software issue that can disable rearview cameras and key driver-assistance features.

• A separate recall affects over 7,000 Super Duty trucks with faulty fuel pumps that can lead to sudden loss of power.

• Both recalls will be fixed free of charge, with owner notifications beginning March 30, 2026.

Ford Motor Company is recalling more than 260,000 vehicles across two separate safety campaigns, addressing issues that could increase the risk of a crash.

The larger recall covers an estimated 254,640 vehicles, including certain models of the 20222025 Lincoln Navigator, 20242025 Lincoln Nautilus, and 2025 Lincoln Aviator and Ford Explorer.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a software problem in the vehicles Image Processing Module A (IPMA) may cause the system to reset unexpectedly.

If that happens, drivers could lose the rearview camera image along with several advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), including pre-collision assist, lane-keeping assist, and blind-spot monitoring. The loss of these features can reduce a drivers ability to detect hazards, increasing crash risk.

Ford plans to fix the issue with a software update that can be installed at dealerships or delivered over the air (OTA). Owner notification letters are expected to be mailed by March 30, 2026.

F-Series trucks being recalled

In a separate recall, Ford is also addressing a problem affecting 7,105 heavy-duty trucks, including certain 20202022 F-250 through F-550 Super Duty models, 20212022 F-600 trucks, and 2022 F-750 vehicles.

These trucks were previously repaired under an earlier recall but may still have defective high-pressure fuel pumps. NHTSA says biodiesel deposits can form on internal pump components, potentially causing the pump to fail. If that occurs, the vehicle could lose drive power, raising the likelihood of a crash.

To fix the issue, dealers will update the powertrain control module (PCM) software at no cost to owners. Notification letters for this recall are also expected to be sent March 30, 2026.

Consumers can check whether their vehicle is included in either recall by searching their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) on the NHTSA website. Ford customer service can be reached at 1-866-436-7332 for additional information.

PFAS-linked chemicals are among the most common, as leafy greens and berries rank highest for contamination

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The Environmental Working Groups 2026 Shoppers Guide found pesticide residues on 75% of conventionally grown produce tested.

• PFAS-linked pesticides, including the fungicide fludioxonil, were among the most commonly detected chemicals.

• Leafy greens, strawberries, and grapes ranked among the most contaminated items, while avocados, sweet corn, and pineapple were among the least.

Some healthy, fresh produce might not be so healthy if it wasgrown using pesticides. At least, thats the position of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which has released its 2026 Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce.

The annual report highlights widespread pesticide contamination on commonly consumed fruits and vegetables and raises new concerns about the presence of PFAS, or forever chemicals, in the food supply.

Analyzing the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture data, the nonprofit found that roughly three-quarters of conventionally grown produce samples contained pesticide residues. The most frequently detected chemical was fludioxonil, a fungicide classified as a PFAS compound and linked to potential health risks. Overall, three of the 10 most commonly detected pesticides met the international definition of PFAS.

Consumers have a right to know whats on their food, said EWG science analyst Varun Subramaniam. This years findings underscore the presence of PFAS pesticides in the food supply.

Clean Fifteen vs. Dirty Dozen

EWGs annual guide ranks produce based on pesticide contamination levels, dividing items into its Clean Fifteen and Dirty Dozen lists.

The Clean Fifteen produce with the lowest pesticide levels was topped this year by pineapple, sweet corn, and avocados, followed by papaya and onions. Other items on the list include frozen sweet peas, asparagus, cabbage, cauliflower, watermelon, mangoes, bananas, carrots, mushrooms, and kiwi.

Nearly 60% of samples from these foods had no detectable pesticide residues, and only 16% contained residues from two or more pesticides.

In contrast, the Dirty Dozen the most contaminated produce was led by spinach, kale, collardand mustard greens. Strawberries, grapes, and nectarines also ranked high, along with blackberries and potatoes.

203 different chemicals

EWG found that 96% of Dirty Dozen samples contained pesticides, with a total of 203 different chemicals detected. PFAS pesticides appeared on 63% of those samples, and most items carried an average of four or more pesticides each.

Blackberries, a relatively new addition to the testing, averaged more than four pesticides per sample. Meanwhile, 90% of potatoes tested contained chlorpropham, a sprout inhibitor banned in the European Union.

Rising concerns over PFAS

The report highlights growing concern about PFAS pesticides, which are highly persistent in the environment. Residues of fludioxonil were found in 14% of all produce samples and in nearly 90% of peaches and plums. Two other PFAS pesticides fluopyram and bifenthrin were also among the most frequently detected.

Researchers are increasingly detecting ultra-short-chain PFAS compounds, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), in water, soil, and crops. Early studies suggest these chemicals may accumulate in plants and pose potential reproductive and developmental risks, though significant data gaps remain.

The EWG also noted that regulators typically evaluate pesticides individually, even though consumers are exposed to multiple chemicals simultaneously. Animal studies indicate combined exposures may be more harmful than single substances alone.

The EWG recommends buying organic versions of Dirty Dozen items when possible, choosing conventional options from the Clean Fifteen, considering frozen produce as a lower-cost alternative, and washing all fruits and vegetables thoroughly.

The verdict changes the landscape for social media accountability

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• A New Mexico jury has found Meta liable in connection with the death of a child, marking a rare legal setback for the tech giant.

• Jurors concluded that the companys platforms contributed to harmful conditions that played a role in the tragedy.

• The verdict could have far-reaching implications for how social media companies are held accountable for user safety.

After weeks of testimony, a New Mexico jury has found Meta Platforms Inc. liable in a wrongful death case involving a child. The verdict delivers a significant legal blow to the parent company of Facebook and Instagram and intensifies scrutiny over the role of social media in young users lives.

The verdict, reached after weeks of testimony, concluded that Metas platforms contributed to conditions that ultimately led to the childs death. While the specific details of the case remain partially sealed due to the minors identity, attorneys for the family argued that harmful content and inadequate safeguards exposed the child to dangerous influences.

Jurors agreed that Meta failed to take sufficient steps to protect vulnerable users, particularly minors, from content that could exacerbate mental health risks. The decision assigns a portion of liability to the company, opening the door for financial damages and potentially setting a precedent for similar cases nationwide.

The jurys verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Metas choice to put profits over kids safety, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez said in a statement. Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew. Today the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough.

Meta will appeal

Meta, in a statement following the verdict, expressed sympathy for the family but disagreed with the outcome, signaling it may pursue an appeal. The company emphasized its ongoing investments in safety tools, parental controls, and content moderation.

We are committed to protecting young people on our platforms, the statement said. We respectfully disagree with the jurys findings and will review our legal options.

Legal experts say the ruling could have broad implications for the tech industry. While lawsuits against social media companies have increased in recent years, many have faced significant hurdles due to federal protections such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for user-generated content.

Whats under review

However, this case appears to hinge not solely on content, but on product design and alleged failures in safeguarding users an emerging legal strategy that has gained traction.

Advocacy groups have long argued that algorithm-driven feeds can push vulnerable users toward harmful material, including content related to self-harm, eating disorders, or other dangerous behaviors. Lawmakers at both the state and federal levels have introduced legislation aimed at increasing protections for children online, though comprehensive reforms have yet to pass.

For the family at the center of the case, the verdict represents a measure of accountability.

As Meta prepares its next legal steps, the case is likely to be closely watched by regulators, industry leaders, and families alike potentially shaping the future of how social media platforms are designed and governed.