Consumer News: The national average gas price is now over $4 a gallon, according to AAA

Dont let fear override common sense

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Tech support cost victims billions each year and often target the most vulnerable users.

• Scammers use fear and urgency to trick people into giving access to their devices or financial information.

• Knowing the warning signs can stop a scam before any damage is done.

As the internet became mainstream in the 1990s, scammers learned that fake tech support schemes were a powerful tool in their arsenal. In the following decades, tech support have evolved into one of the most pervasive forms of online fraud.

What began as crude pop-up warnings has turned into sophisticated operations involving call centers, remote access tools, and convincing impersonation tactics. These dont just cause financial loss they can lead to identity theft, compromised devices, and long-term security risks.

At their core, tech support exploit a simple idea: most people rely on technology but dont fully understand how it works. Scammers step into that gap, pretending to be trusted experts from well-known companies like Microsoft, Apple, or antivirus providers.

Why these are so dangerous

The danger of tech support goes beyond a one-time payment. Once a scammer gains your trust or worse, access to your device the consequences can multiply quickly.

First, theres financial loss. Victims are often pressured into paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars for fake repairs or unnecessary software.

Second, theres data exposure. If you allow remote access, scammers can view files, copy sensitive information, install malware, or capture passwords.

Third, theres an ongoing vulnerability. Some scammers install backdoors or convince victims to sign up for recurring support services, keeping the door open for future exploitation.

Finally, these often rely on psychological manipulation. Victims may feel embarrassed afterward, which can delay reporting and allow scammers to continue targeting others.

How tech support work

Most tech support follow a familiar pattern:

• A pop-up warning appears claiming your computer is infected or compromised.

• You receive an unsolicited call or email from someone claiming to be technical support.

• The scammer urges immediate action, often using alarming language.

• Youre asked to grant remote access or download software.

• Payment is demanded to fix the issue.

The entire process is designed to create panic and push you into acting without thinking. Fortunately, these schemes all reveal themselves if you know what to look for. Recognizing the warning signs is the best defense. Here are the most common red flags:

Red Flags to Watch For

1. Unsolicited contact: Legitimate tech companies do not call, email, or text you out of the blue to report problems with your device
2. Urgent or threatening language: Phrases like Your computer is infected, Your data is at risk, or Act immediately are meant to create panic.
3. Requests for remote access:No reputable company will ask for remote access unless you initiated support through official channels
4. Payment demands: Scammers often request payment via gift cards, wire transfers, cryptocurrency, or unusual methods. These are nearly impossible to trace or reverse.
5. Suspicious pop-ups: Fake alerts may lock your screen or play loud warnings. Real system alerts dont include phone numbers to call.
6. Impersonation of well-known brands: Scammers frequently claim to represent companies like Microsoft or Apple but these companies dont operate this way.
7. Poor grammar or odd behavior: While are getting more polished, inconsistencies in communication can still be a clue.

How to Protect Yourself

Avoiding tech support comes down to a few simple habits:

• Dont engage with unsolicited messages or calls.

• Never give control of your device to someone you didnt contact.

• Verify support through official company websites.

• Use security software and keep your system updated.

• When in doubt, shut it down close the browser or restart your device.

If you think youve encountered a scam, disconnect from the internet immediately and run a trusted security scan. If youve already paid or shared information, contact your bank and report the incident as soon as possible.

Tech support succeed because they prey on fear and trust. The more convincing they become, the more important awareness is. By understanding how these work and recognizing their warning signs, you can avoid becoming a victim and help others do the same.

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.

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.