Consumer News: Here are the red flags that scream ‘tech support scam’

Regulators charge that users personal data was shared with an unrelated third party

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The FTC alleges OkCupid shared users personal data including photos and location with an unrelated third party without consent.

• A proposed settlement would bar OkCupid and Match Group Americas from misrepresenting their privacy practices.

• The case stems from claims that millions of users data were exposed, despite promises it would not be shared without notice or opt-out.

Federal regulators have taken steps to end what they say is the mishandling of personal information. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken enforcement action against the dating app OkCupid and its service provider, Match Group Americas. The companies are accused of misleading users about how their personal data was handled.

In a federal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the FTC alleges that OkCupid operated by Humor Rainbow, Inc. shared sensitive user information with a third party that had no formal business relationship with the company. The data reportedly included nearly three million user photos, along with location and other personal details.

According to the FTC, the disclosures violated OkCupids own privacy policy, which assured users that their information would only be shared under specific conditions, such as with service providers or after giving users notice and an opportunity to opt out.

The FTC enforces the privacy promises that companies make, said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the agencys Bureau of Consumer Protection. We will investigate, and where appropriate, take action against companies that promise to safeguard your data but fail to follow through even if that means we have to enforce our Civil Investigative Demands in court.

The complaint

The complaint alleges the data sharing occurred at the request of a third party, of which OkCupids founders were financial investors. Despite lacking a formal partnership, the FTC says the third party was granted access to large datasets without contractual limits on how the information could be used.

Regulators also claim that OkCupid and Match Group took steps to conceal the arrangement. When reports surfaced about the data transfer, the company allegedly denied involvement both publicly and to users, while also attempting to obstruct the FTCs investigation.

Under the proposed settlement, OkCupid and Match Group Americas would be permanently prohibited from misrepresenting how they collect, use, or share personal data. The order would also restrict misleading claims about privacy controls and user choices related to data handling.

The FTC voted 2-0 to authorize the complaint and proposed order. If approved by a federal judge, the settlement would carry the force of law.

The agency emphasized that its complaint reflects a reason to believe the companies violated the law and that enforcement action is in the public interest.

A new proposal would place limits on high earners

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Theres a debate about whether Social Security benefits should be capped at $100,000 annually for couples and $50,000 for individuals at full retirement age.

• The plan, from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), could save up to $100$190 billion over 10 years and reduce a significant share of the programs long-term funding gap.

• The cap would primarily affect wealthy retirees, with most lower- and middle-income beneficiaries potentially seeing stable or even higher benefits over time.

Social Security is six or seven years away from depleting the trust fund, but advocates are floating a plan to buy the retirement system a little more time.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan fiscal policy group, believes capping benefits for the highest earners could save a lot of money over a decade. The group has introduced what it calls a Six-Figure Limit, a plan that would cap annual Social Security benefits at $100,000 for couples and $50,000 for single retirees who claim benefits at full retirement age.

The alternative, the group warns, is a reduction in everyones benefits. The programs trust fund is projected to run out of reserves by 2032, at which point benefits would automatically be cut by roughly 24% unless Congress intervenes. So far, lawmakers have shown no willingness to do so.

Targeting high earners

Under the CRFB plan, the cap would apply mainly to the wealthiest retirees those who spent decades earning at or above the taxable maximum and delaying retirement. While relatively few retirees currently receive six-figure benefits, the number is expected to grow as benefit formulas increase payouts over time.

The limits would also vary based on when retirees begin collecting benefits. For example, couples who delay benefits until age 70 could face a higher cap around $124,000 while those who claim early at age 62 would be limited to about $70,000 annually.

CRFB argues the approach would make the system more progressive by concentrating reductions among affluent retirees. In early years, the cap would affect only a tiny fraction roughly the top 0.05% of couples but its reach would expand gradually.

Impact on solvency

According to CRFB estimates, the policy could generate between $100 billion and $190 billion in savings over the next decade, depending on how the cap is indexed over time.

The organization says the measure could close about one-fifth of Social Securitys long-term funding gap or more if paired with additional reforms.

The group also contends that limiting benefits at the top could allow for increases at the bottom. Its analysis suggests that 70% to 80% of beneficiaries could ultimately see higher payable benefits, with the largest gains going to lower-income retirees.

Debate over fairness

The proposal is likely to intensify an already contentious debate over how to fix Social Security. Policymakers broadly agree the program needs reform, but remain divided over whether to raise taxes, cut benefits, or pursue a combination of both.

Supporters of the cap argue that Social Security was designed as a safety net, not a source of six-figure income for wealthy retirees. Critics, however, warn that limiting benefits even for high earners could open the door to broader cuts or undermine the programs universal structure.

GasBuddy predicts the price will continue to climb

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The U.S. national average for regular gasoline has surged to about $4.02 per gallon, according to AAA.

• GasBuddy data shows similar but slightly lower readings in recent days, with prices around $3.95$3.99 per gallon before the latest spike.

• Prices have climbed more than $1 in a month, driven largely by global oil disruptions and seasonal demand shifts.

The national average price of gasoline in the United States has climbed above $4 per gallon for the first time in nearly four years, reflecting a sharp and rapid increase that is squeezing household budgets and raising broader economic concerns.

According to AAA, the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline reached approximately $4.018 as of March 31, marking a dramatic rise from just under $3 at the end of February.

GasBuddy, which tracks prices at tens of thousands of stations nationwide, reported similar figures in recent days, with the national average hovering between $3.95 and $3.99 per gallon before crossing the $4 threshold.

Rapid climb shocks consumers

The recent surge represents one of the fastest monthly increases in years. AAA data shows prices jumped roughly $1 in a single month, fueled by a combination of geopolitical tensions and seasonal factors.

Analysts point to disruptions in global oil supply particularly tied to conflict in the Middle East as a primary driver. The effective closure of key shipping routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, has pushed crude oil prices above $100 per barrel, increasing costs for refiners and ultimately consumers.

The situation remains highly volatile and unpredictable, but upward pressure on fuel prices is likely to persist as long as global oil supplies are constrained by the continued disruption in the Strait, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, in the company blog.

Were likely to see the national average for gasoline push beyond the $4-per-gallon mark, while diesel could approach $6 per gallon and potentially set new records if conditions fail to improve.

DeHaan said Americans have already spent nearly $8 billion more on gasoline over the past month, a trend that poses growing risks to the broader economy, while surging diesel prices may begin to reaccelerate inflation.

At the same time, the annual switch to more expensive summer-blend gasoline and rising spring travel demand have compounded upward pressure on prices.

Regional disparities widen

While the national average has crossed $4 per gallon,prices vary widely by region. West Coast drivers are paying significantly more, with California nearing $5.90 per gallon, while some central states remain closer to the low $3 range.

These differences reflect variations in fuel taxes, environmental regulations, and proximity to refineries factors that typically create persistent regional gaps even during nationwide price swings.

The spike stands in stark contrast to earlier expectations. GasBuddys 2026 outlook projected a yearly national average of about $2.97 per gallon, suggesting lower prices overall despite expected volatility.

A new proposal would place limits on high earners

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Theres a debate about whether Social Security benefits should be capped at $100,000 annually for couples and $50,000 for individuals at full retirement age.

• The plan, from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), could save up to $100$190 billion over 10 years and reduce a significant share of the programs long-term funding gap.

• The cap would primarily affect wealthy retirees, with most lower- and middle-income beneficiaries potentially seeing stable or even higher benefits over time.

Social Security is six or seven years away from depleting the trust fund, but advocates are floating a plan to buy the retirement system a little more time.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan fiscal policy group, believes capping benefits for the highest earners could save a lot of money over a decade. The group has introduced what it calls a Six-Figure Limit, a plan that would cap annual Social Security benefits at $100,000 for couples and $50,000 for single retirees who claim benefits at full retirement age.

The alternative, the group warns, is a reduction in everyones benefits. The programs trust fund is projected to run out of reserves by 2032, at which point benefits would automatically be cut by roughly 24% unless Congress intervenes. So far, lawmakers have shown no willingness to do so.

Targeting high earners

Under the CRFB plan, the cap would apply mainly to the wealthiest retireesthose who spent decades earning at or above the taxable maximum and delaying retirement. While relatively few retirees currently receive six-figure benefits, the number is expected to grow as benefit formulas increase payouts over time.

The limits would also vary based on when retirees begin collecting benefits. For example, couples who delay benefits until age 70 could face a higher caparound $124,000while those who claim early at age 62 would be limited to about $70,000 annually.

CRFB argues the approach would make the system more progressive by concentrating reductions among affluent retirees. In early years, the cap would affect only a tiny fractionroughly the top 0.05% of couplesbut its reach would expand gradually.

Impact on solvency

According to CRFB estimates, the policy could generate between $100 billion and $190 billion in savings over the next decade, depending on how the cap is indexed over time.

The organization says the measure could close about one-fifth of Social Securitys long-term funding gapor more if paired with additional reforms.

The group also contends that limiting benefits at the top could allow for increases at the bottom. Its analysis suggests that 70% to 80% of beneficiaries could ultimately see higher payable benefits, with the largest gains going to lower-income retirees.

Debate over fairness

The proposal is likely to intensify an already contentious debate over how to fix Social Security. Policymakers broadly agree the program needs reform, but remain divided over whether to raise taxes, cut benefits, or pursue a combination of both.

Supporters of the cap argue that Social Security was designed as a safety net, not a source of six-figure income for wealthy retirees. Critics, however, warn that limiting benefitseven for high earnerscould open the door to broader cuts or undermine the programs universal structure.