Consumer News: The brands Americans trust most in 2026 — and how to use that to save money

New guidance says school breaks help kids learn and thrive

• The American Academy of Pediatrics says recess is critical for childrens health, learning, and emotional well-being.

• Updated guidance recommends protecting recess time for students of all ages, including teens.

• Experts say breaks during the school day help children focus, manage stress, and retain information better.

For years, recess has often been treated as extra time in the school day something that can be shortened, skipped, or taken away when academic pressures rise. But the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that approach may be hurting students more than helping them.

In a newly updated policy statement the first in over a decade the group argues that recess is a necessary part of healthy child development and academic success, not simply a break from learning. The guidance, published in the journal Pediatrics, is the organizations first major update on recess in 13 years and reflects newer research on learning, stress, memory, and social development.

Recess should look different as children get older, but it remains just as essential for a middle- or high-school student as they move from the playground to more social experiences, Robert Murray, MD, FAAP, a lead author of the policy statement from the AAP Council on School Health, said in a news release.

Research tells us that breaks from classroom instruction help students of all ages to reset, focus better, and manage stress when they return to learning.

The new guidance

According to the policy, students benefit from regular breaks during the school day because the brain needs time to process and retain new information.

The AAP says recess gives children and teens an opportunity to reset mentally, move their bodies, and interact socially in ways that classroom instruction alone cannot provide.

The updated guidance emphasizes that recess matters for students of every age, not just younger children. While older students may spend recess differently than elementary schoolers, the organization says middle and high school students still benefit from stepping away from structured academic work.

Researchers cited in the policy found that breaks can improve concentration, reduce stress, and support emotional well-being when students return to class.

The AAP also recommends that recess be treated as protected personal time and not taken away as punishment because of academic performance. The organization points to evidence showing that physical activity and unstructured social interaction can support memory retention, confidence-building, and relationship skills.

The guidance notes that recess can include many different types of activities, from active outdoor play to quieter social interaction indoors.

What this means for consumers

For families, the updated recommendations may offer reassurance that play and downtime are not distractions from learning. Instead, pediatric experts say they are part of the learning process itself.

Parents may also see this guidance as encouragement to ask schools how recess is handled, whether breaks are protected, and how students are supported socially and physically throughout the day.

The policy ultimately frames recess as a basic support for childrens overall development one that helps students learn more effectively while also supporting their mental and physical health.

Zillow argues that private listings can also leave money on the table

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Zillow says home sellers lost a combined $1.49 billion over three years when the same real estate agent represented both buyer and seller in a transaction.

• The company also found sellers who kept listings off the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) lost another $1.36 billion collectively during the same period.

• Researchers say the data suggests sellers generally receive lower prices when homes are marketed privately or when agents handle both sides of a deal.

It might seem obvious that if a buyer and seller share one real estate transaction, they would save money. But a new Zillow analysis suggests that, not only would you not save money, if you are the seller, you would lose money. Maybe a lot.

The analysis concludes that, whats called dual agency, can leave thousands of dollars on the table for sellers.

According to the study, sellers who used the same real estate agent as the buyer lost a combined $1.49 billion over the last three years. Zillow said these dual agency transactions consistently resulted in lower sale prices compared with deals involving separate representation for buyers and sellers.

Private listings may be costly, too

The company also reported that homes sold off the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) often marketed privately or within exclusive networks generated another $1.36 billion in seller losses over the same period. Zillows analysis found privately-listed homes typically sold for about 1.3% less than comparable homes listed publicly on the MLS.

Zillow argues that the financial incentives in dual-agency arrangements can create conflicts of interest. When one agent represents both sides of a transaction, the brokerage may earn a larger share of the commission by keeping the deal in-house, potentially reducing motivation to negotiate aggressively on behalf of the seller.

The study found the pricing penalties associated with both dual agency and off-MLS listings appeared consistently in every year analyzed, suggesting the trend is not limited to a particular housing market cycle.

Heightened scrutiny

The findings arrive as the real estate industry continues to face scrutiny over commissions and agent compensation practices following high-profile lawsuits against the National Association of Realtors and several major brokerages. Those legal challenges accused the industry of maintaining practices that inflated commissions and limited competition.

Although recent settlement agreements were expected to increase fee transparency and encourage more negotiation, several industry analysts say commission structures have changed only modestly so far.

Consumer advocates say the new Zillow data reinforces the importance of broad market exposure and independent representation during home sales. Critics of dual agency contend that sellers may sacrifice negotiating leverage when one agent is responsible for serving both parties in a transaction.

Real estate professionals who support dual agency argue it can streamline transactions and simplify communication, though consumer groups continue to caution sellers to fully understand how representation arrangements could affect their final sale price.

Some consumers may receive compensation

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Bank of America has agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle allegations that customers were improperly charged ATM access fees at 7-Eleven locations.

• Regulators said the bank failed to provide required fee disclosures before transactions were completed.

• Eligible customers may receive refunds under the settlement agreement, which resolves claims without an admission of wrongdoing.

Regulators in several states report that Bank of America will pay $2.25 million in a settlement with consumers who say they were improperly charged ATM fees at machines located inside 7-Eleven convenience stores.

The settlement resolves claims that customers were assessed fees without receiving legally required disclosures before completing withdrawals or balance inquiries at certain ATMs operated in partnership with 7-Eleven. Regulators said consumers may not have been adequately informed that they would incur surcharges when using the machines.

Authorities alleged that the disclosure failures violated consumer protection laws designed to ensure transparency in electronic banking transactions. The issue reportedly affected transactions conducted over multiple years at ATMs in several states.

Restitution to consumers

Under the agreement, Bank of America will pay monetary penalties and provide restitution to affected customers. The bank did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement but agreed to improve its compliance and oversight procedures involving ATM fee notifications.

Consumer advocates say the case highlights ongoing concerns about so-called junk fees in banking and financial services. ATM surcharges, overdraft fees, and other service charges have faced increasing scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers in recent years, particularly when consumers are not clearly informed in advance.

The banks response

Bank of America said it cooperated with investigators and has already taken steps to address the issue. The bank stated that transparency for customers remains a priority and that systems have been updated to ensure fee disclosures comply with applicable regulations.

Customers who believe they were improperly charged may be contacted directly regarding potential reimbursement eligibility, depending on the terms of the settlement administration process.

The settlement is the latest in a series of enforcement actions targeting financial institutions over consumer fee practices. Regulators have increasingly focused on ensuring banks provide clear disclosures and avoid charging fees that consumers may not reasonably expect.

Some consumers may receive compensation

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Bank of America has agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle allegations that customers were improperly charged ATM access fees at 7-Eleven locations.

• Regulators said the bank failed to provide required fee disclosures before transactions were completed.

• Eligible customers may receive refunds under the settlement agreement, which resolves claims without an admission of wrongdoing.

Regulators in several states report that Bank of America will pay $2.25 million in a settlement with consumers who say they were improperly charged ATM fees at machines located inside 7-Eleven convenience stores.

The settlement resolves claims that customers were assessed fees without receiving legally required disclosures before completing withdrawals or balance inquiries at certain ATMs operated in partnership with 7-Eleven. Regulators said consumers may not have been adequately informed that they would incur surcharges when using the machines.

Authorities alleged that the disclosure failures violated consumer protection laws designed to ensure transparency in electronic banking transactions. The issue reportedly affected transactions conducted over multiple years at ATMs in several states.

Restitution to consumers

Under the agreement, Bank of America will pay monetary penalties and provide restitution to affected customers. The bank did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement but agreed to improve its compliance and oversight procedures involving ATM fee notifications.

Consumer advocates say the case highlights ongoing concerns about so-called junk fees in banking and financial services. ATM surcharges, overdraft fees and other service charges have faced increasing scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers in recent years, particularly when consumers are not clearly informed in advance.

The banks response

Bank of America said it cooperated with investigators and has already taken steps to address the issue. The bank stated that transparency for customers remains a priority and that systems have been updated to ensure fee disclosures comply with applicable regulations.

Customers who believe they were improperly charged may be contacted directly regarding potential reimbursement eligibility, depending on the terms of the settlement administration process.

The settlement is the latest in a series of enforcement actions targeting financial institutions over consumer fee practices. Regulators have increasingly focused on ensuring banks provide clear disclosures and avoid charging fees that consumers may not reasonably expect.