Consumer News: Rents approach $2,000 as apartment supply begins to tighten

The products were sold at independent pet stores and online

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Fromm Family Foods is recalling nearly 5,900 cases of two canned dog food products because they may contain pieces of metal.

• The affected products were sold at independent pet stores and through online retailers in the United States and Canada.

• No illnesses or injuries have been reported, but consumers should stop feeding the recalled food and return it to the retailer.

Fromm Family Foods has recalled two varieties of canned dog food following complaints that the products may contain metal fragments.

The Wisconsin-based company said the recall covers 3,852 cases of Fromm Turkey Pt Wet Dog Food and 1,973 cases of Fromm Diner Classics Milos Meatloaf Pt Wet Dog Food. The products were distributed through neighborhood pet stores and online retailers in the United States and Canada.

According to the recall notice posted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the company initiated the recall after receiving complaints about metal contamination. No illnesses or injuries associated with the products had been reported as of the announcement.

How to identify the recalled dog food

The recall applies only to the following products:

• Fromm Turkey Pt Wet Dog Food: 12.2-ounce cans with UPC 072705118700, lot code EP2A3306 551006, and a best-by date of 03/2029.

• Fromm Diner Classics Milos Meatloaf Pt Wet Dog Food: 12.5-ounce cans with UPC 072705132324, lot code EP2A3306 551029, and a best-by date of 03/2029.

Fromm said no other products are included in the recall.

Metal pieces can cause serious injuries

A dog that swallows metal may experience choking, vomiting, loss of appetite, lethargy, or stomach discomfort. Sharp fragments can cut the animals mouth or gastrointestinal tract.

Larger quantities of metal may also cause digestive problems, a partial blockage, or an intestinal obstruction, according to the company. Pet owners whose dogs ate the recalled food and are showing symptoms should contact a veterinarian.

What consumers should do

Consumers should immediately stop feeding the recalled products to their dogs and return the cans to the retailer where they were purchased.

Fromm said it identified the error that led to the contamination and has implemented corrective measures intended to prevent it from happening again.

Consumers with questions can contact Fromm Family Foods at 800-325-6331, Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central time. Questions may also be emailed to info@frommfamily.com.

Only 14% of retailers see AI playing a big shopping role

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Sixty-five percent of consumers plan to use artificial intelligence for at least part of their holiday shopping this year, a new survey finds.

• Just 8% of retailers say they are highly confident in their ability to use AI to improve the shopping experience.

• Shoppers also expect reliable deliveries, free returns and quick refunds, creating additional challenges for retailers.

Artificial intelligence could play a major role in how consumers find gifts, compare products and manage their spending this holiday season, but many retailers appear unprepared for the shift.

A new holiday shopping report from Narvar found that 65% of consumers plan to use AI during at least one part of their holiday shopping. However, only 8% of retailers said they were very confident in their ability to use the technology to improve the customer experience.

Narvar, which provides software to retailers, surveyed 1,348 U.S. consumers who plan to shop online during the holidays and 100 retail decision-makers.

Consumers said they expect to use AI for a range of shopping tasks. Forty-three percent plan to use it to discover gifts, while 33% expect to use it to compare products or summarize customer reviews. Twenty-nine percent said they would use AI to create a budget or plan their holiday spending.

Another 15% plan to use the technology after making a purchase, such as tracking packages or receiving reminders about return deadlines.

Nearly eight in 10 consumers said they would use AI-powered shopping tools if those services made the experience feel more personalized.

Retailers, however, may be underestimating the change. Only 14% of retail executives surveyed said increased use of AI shopping assistants would be the biggest change in consumer behavior this season. Many remain more focused on traditional concerns, including shipping costs, discounts and order fulfillment.

Consumers arent waiting for retailers to catch up, Narvar CEO Anisa Kumar said. Theyve already brought AI into how they discover gifts, compare prices, and decide what to buy.

Shoppers want free shipping but they also want it fast

The survey identified another potential conflict between consumer expectations and retailers costs.

Although 76% of shoppers said they would accept slower delivery in exchange for free shipping, nearly three in 10 still expected a free order to arrive either the same day or the next day. Eleven percent considered same-day delivery reasonable, while 18% expected next-day service.

Meeting those expectations without charging for shipping may be difficult and costly, particularly for smaller retailers. Narvar said merchants should clearly display estimated delivery dates during checkout and then make sure orders arrive when promised.

Delivery reliability may matter more than speed. Nearly half of consumers 49% said dependable delivery dates influence where they buy. That closely matches the 51% of retailers that listed delivery-date accuracy as a leading strategy for turning browsers into buyers.

Late and missing packages remain common concerns. Thirty-seven percent of shoppers said they experienced a late delivery during last years holiday season. Nearly one-quarter said a package was marked as delivered even though they did not receive it.

Returns and refunds could determine loyalty

Retailers may also lose customers if they make returns expensive or refunds unpredictable.

More than half of consumers 56% said they had delayed or abandoned a purchase because they did not know how long a refund would take. Forty-six percent said they avoid retailers that charge customers to return purchases.

When asked what would make them shop with a retailer again after the holidays, 51% cited each of three factors: avoiding delivery problems, providing hassle-free returns and offering a discount.

Cost remains a major concern, with 45% of respondents worried about having enough money to buy gifts. Even so, 63% expect to spend more this holiday season than they did in 2025.

Consumers may also start earlier. Fifty-eight percent said they plan to begin shopping sooner than last year, but 77% of retailers said they have no plans to offer incentives that encourage early purchases.

The findings suggest AI may help consumers search more efficiently, but shoppers should still independently confirm prices, product details, return policies and delivery estimates.

AI-generated recommendations and summaries can be incomplete or inaccurate, especially when they rely on outdated information.

Coding mistake may have lowered scores sent to lenders for about 4 million consumers

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Equifax has agreed to create a $100 million fund to settle claims that a coding error caused it to send inaccurate credit scores to lenders.

• The error may have affected about 4 million consumers who applied for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards or other credit during a three-week period in 2022.

• Eligible consumers are expected to receive notices explaining how to claim a cash payment, but the amount of individual payments has not been determined.

Equifax has agreed to a $100 million class-action settlement over allegations that a coding error caused the credit bureau to provide inaccurate credit scores for millions of consumers.

The proposed agreement received preliminary approval Aug. 17 from U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia. A final approval hearing is scheduled for Jan. 22, 2027.

The lawsuit alleges that Equifax miscalculated some credit scores sent to lenders between March 17 and April 6, 2022. The problem occurred as consumers were applying for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and other financial products.

Approximately 4 million people may be included in the settlement class, according to attorneys representing the consumers. In some cases, scores reportedly fell by more than 20 points, potentially affecting whether applicants were approved and how much interest they were charged.

Equifax has denied violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act or engaging in wrongdoing. The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability.

The credit agency has agreed to write some pretty big checks lately. Earlier this month, Equifax agreed to a $2.2 million settlement to resolve duplicate collection reports.

A short-lived error with potentially costly consequences

Equifax acknowledged in 2022 that a technology error affected the calculation of some credit scores and related information. The company has said the underlying information in consumers credit files was not changed.

However, the score delivered to a lender can play an important role in determining whether an applicant qualifies for credit and the terms offered. Even a relatively small score change can be important when an applicant is near a lenders cutoff for approval or for a lower interest rate.

The lawsuit alleged that the inaccurate scores may have caused some consumers to be denied credit or offered loans at higher rates. It also accused Equifax of relying on outdated systems and inadequate testing procedures.

Equifax has maintained that most scores did not change substantially. The company previously said fewer than 300,000 consumers experienced a change of 25 points or more and argued that lenders consider many factors besides a credit score.

How much could consumers receive?

The $100 million settlement fund will be used to make cash payments to eligible class members and cover court-approved legal fees, administrative expenses and the cost of notifying consumers.

Payments are expected to be distributed on a pro rata basis, meaning the amount each person receives will depend on the money remaining after expenses and the number of valid claims submitted. No individual payment estimate has been announced.

The fund is non-reversionary, according to the consumers attorneys. That means money left after the claims process will not be returned to Equifax.

Consumers do not appear to be able to file claims yet. If the settlement receives final approval, a settlement website and claim procedure are expected to provide information about eligibility, deadlines and payment options. Potential class members may also receive notices by mail or email. Attorneys for the class say the agreement is the largest class-action settlement reached under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Consumers should be cautious of unexpected messages promising an immediate Equifax payment. A legitimate settlement administrator should not require a processing fee or ask for payment to submit a claim.

Hidden fees are common, respondents admit

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Nearly half of recent movers surveyed said they experienced problems, including hidden fees, price increases, damaged belongings or poor communication.

• Although 81% believed they could recognize a moving scam, only 27.6% verified a movers licenses, insurance or official records.

• Large upfront deposits, unclear pricing and a refusal to provide written details are among the strongest warning signs.

Moving may be harder to recognize than many consumers believe, according to a new survey that found a significant gap between peoples confidence and the precautions they take before hiring a mover.

The 2026 Consumer Moving Survey, commissioned by North American Van Lines, questioned 500 people in the United States and Canada who had moved within the previous two years. The respondents were split evenly between the two countries.

More than eight in 10 respondents 81.4% said they were confident they could identify a moving scam. Nevertheless, 45.2% reported encountering at least one problem during their most recent move.

The most common complaint was the addition of fees that had not been disclosed beforehand, reported by 20.6% of respondents. Another 19.6% said their final bill was significantly higher than the original quote.

Other problems included difficulty contacting the company after booking, unexplained delivery delays and damage for which the mover refused to accept responsibility.

The findings do not mean that every service problem involved fraud. However, they illustrate how unclear contracts and inadequate research may leave consumers vulnerable to both dishonest operators and unexpected costs.

Warning signs consumers recognize

When asked what would cause them to reject a moving company immediately, 35.6% pointed to unclear pricing or unexpected fees. Poor or missing online reviews concerned 31.8%, while 20.2% cited pressure to book immediately to preserve a quoted price.

Only 12.4% identified the absence of a physical address or verifiable license information as their primary reason to reject a mover.

A request for a large upfront deposit produced the most concern when respondents were asked to select the strongest sign that a mover might be untrustworthy. Nearly 39% chose that warning.

Other red flags included a movers refusal to provide information in writing, a suspicious or limited review history and an unusually low estimate.

A deposit is not necessarily evidence of fraud. Consumers should, however, ask how it will be applied, obtain the cancellation policy in writing and be wary of companies demanding full payment or a large sum before the move.

Many consumers rely too heavily on reviews

The survey uncovered what the company described as a credential gap. While 60.6% used online research to evaluate movers, only 27.6% checked licensing, insurance or other official records.

Nearly four in 10 relied only on online reviews. Another 12.6% based their decision largely on the estimate and their first impression, while 20.6% conducted little or no research.

Reviews can provide useful information, but they can also be purchased, manipulated or generated using artificial intelligence. Consumers should check reviews across several platforms and look for repeated wording, sudden clusters of positive ratings or accounts with little other activity.

Consumers hiring a company for an interstate move can verify its registration, complaint history and U.S. Department of Transportation number through the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. State consumer-protection or transportation agencies may regulate moves conducted entirely within one state.

How to reduce the risk

Consumers should compare written estimates from at least two or three companies rather than accepting the first quote. The survey found that 21% hired the first mover they located, while just 17.2% personally compared three or more companies.

Before agreeing to a move, consumers should determine whether the business is the actual carrier or a broker that will sell the job to another company. They should also request proof of licensing and insurance, confirm the company has a legitimate physical address and obtain all charges in writing.

Consumers should never sign blank or incomplete documents. They should keep copies of the estimate, inventory, bill of lading, receipts, emails and text messages. Photographs of belongings before loading can also help support a damage claim.

If a mover demands additional money after loading the shipment or refuses to deliver belongings unless the consumer pays more, the incident should be reported promptly to the FMCSAs National Consumer Complaint Database. Complaints involving local moves can be filed with the appropriate state consumer-protection agency.

The surveys main lesson is that recognizing obvious warning signs is not enough. Checking official credentials, comparing companies and demanding clear written terms may provide considerably more protection than confidence or online reviews alone.