Consumer News: If you think mortgage rates are high, just wait

Bank customers are unlikely to see an immediate impact.

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Bank of America faces more than $1.2 billion in federal penalties for failing to detect and report suspicious financial transactions, including activity potentially linked to drug trafficking and international money laundering.

• Federal regulators say the bank ignored warning signs for years, even after being ordered in 2024 to improve its anti-money laundering procedures.

• Consumers won't receive settlement checks, and ordinary banking services are expected to continue, although customers could face additional identity verification and scrutiny of certain transactions.

Bank of America is facing one of the largest financial penalties in U.S. banking history after federal regulators concluded that the institution failed to adequately monitor suspicious transactions and comply with laws designed to prevent money laundering.

The U.S. Treasury Department announced Tuesday that it had imposed more than $1.21 billion in penalties against the nation's second-largest bank, including a $1.2 billion penalty assessed by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

The action represents the third-largest penalty in Treasury Department history.

Regulators said Bank of America failed to properly monitor trillions of dollars in transactions, allowing more than $5 billion in potentially suspicious activity to go unreported or be reported too late to be useful to investigators.

More than $1 billion of that activity involved potential national security threats and other high-priority risks, including Chinese money laundering networks, suspected narcotics trafficking and financial transactions connected to the southwestern U.S. border.

What regulators found

According to Treasury officials, Bank of America's problems extended beyond occasional mistakes or technical failures.

The bank admitted to willfully violating provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires financial institutions to maintain systems for identifying suspicious transactions and reporting them to federal authorities.

Regulators said the bank sometimes relied on law enforcement agencies and other financial institutions to identify questionable activity rather than detecting it through its own monitoring systems.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also found that the bank's compliance employees lacked adequate training and that management had failed to address longstanding weaknesses.

The OCC imposed a record $750 million penalty, which will be credited against FinCEN's $1.2 billion assessment rather than added to it.

Separately, Bank of America agreed to an $11.6 million settlement involving 475 apparent violations of U.S. sanctions programs covering countries including Russia and Iran.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the violations exposed the U.S. financial system to significant risks and demonstrated that large financial institutions are not exempt from enforcement actions.

What does this mean for Bank of America customers?

For millions of Americans who have checking accounts, savings accounts, credit cards or mortgages with Bank of America, the immediate consequences are likely to be limited.

The penalties do not require the bank to close branches, suspend ordinary banking operations or restrict customer access to deposits.

There is also no indication that customers will receive compensation from the settlement.

Unlike some consumer protection settlements, in which money is distributed to people harmed by illegal practices, these penalties address violations of federal financial reporting and anti-money laundering requirements.

The money will go to the federal government, not individual account holders.

Customers should also understand that the enforcement action does not mean their deposits have been stolen or that their accounts are unsafe.

Bank deposits remain eligible for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation protection, generally up to $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.

Could banking become more complicated?

There could be some indirect consequences. Bank of America has been ordered to improve its monitoring of financial transactions, including conducting a retrospective review to identify suspicious activity that its systems previously missed.

As those improvements are implemented, some customers could encounter additional requests for identification, documentation or explanations of unusual transactions.

Large international transfers, substantial cash transactions and certain business payments could receive greater scrutiny.

However, these are potential consequences of enhanced compliance procedures, not specific new restrictions announced for ordinary customers.

There is also the question of whether the financial penalties could eventually affect what consumers pay for banking services.

Banks sometimes seek to offset higher operating costs through fees or other pricing decisions. But there is no evidence that Bank of America plans to raise consumer fees or reduce deposit interest rates specifically because of this settlement.

Bank of America responds

Bank of America acknowledged the seriousness of the regulatory findings while emphasizing its efforts to improve compliance.

In a statement, the bank said it had invested billions of dollars in technology and assigned thousands of employees to combating financial crime.

The company said it had worked with regulators to resolve issues stemming from a 2024 regulatory order and a subsequent FinCEN investigation.

The bank also said it was making substantial progress toward completing the required improvements.

Where you live can make a $25,000 difference in annual household bills

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Americans spend a national median of $25,266 a year on essential household bills, but costs vary dramatically from city to city.

• San Jose, California, tops the list of the most expensive cities, with annual bills totaling $44,947, while Detroit is the least expensive at $20,125.

• When household income is taken into account, the affordability picture changes significantly, with Detroit residents facing the greatest financial burden.

Americans struggling to pay their monthly bills might find that where they live makes an enormous difference. A new report from bill payment service doxo finds that households in the nation's most expensive cities can spend more than twice as much on essential bills as those in the least expensive cities.

The company's 2026 Top 50 U.S. Cities Household Bill Pay Report examines spending on 13 common household expenses, including mortgages, rent, utilities, auto loans, insurance, and mobile phone service.

The national median is $25,266 annually, or about $2,106 a month. But in San Jose, California, the median household pays approximately $3,746 a month, 78% above the national figure.

In Detroit, the median annual cost is just $20,125, or about $1,677 a month.

That means households in San Jose spend $24,822 more each year on essential bills than households in Detroit.

The most and least expensive cities

California accounts for three of the five most expensive cities, reflecting the substantial costs associated with living in some of the nation's largest coastal housing markets.

But the report also reveals that lower household bills don't necessarily mean residents are better off financially.

One of the report's most revealing findings emerges when household expenses are compared with local incomes.

In San Jose, where annual bills are highest, those expenses represent 31% of median household income. In San Francisco, the figure is just 28%.

Detroit, despite having the lowest annual bills of the 50 cities, has the highest burden relative to income. Essential bills consume an estimated 51% of median household income.

Other cities where bills consume a particularly large share of income include Los Angeles at 45%, Miami and Memphis at 44%, and Baltimore at 42%.

A household earning substantially more money may be better positioned to handle higher bills than a lower-income household living in a less expensive city.

For consumers considering a move to reduce living expenses, the findings suggest that looking at housing prices or utility costs alone may not provide a complete picture of affordability.

Even without housing, some cities are expensive

Housing is generally the largest household expense, but doxo also examined what consumers pay when mortgage and rent payments are excluded.

That analysis produced some surprising results.

San Jose remained the most expensive city, with nonhousing bills averaging $16,329 annually. New York ranked second at $15,865.

However, Tampa, Florida, moved into third place at $15,303, followed by Birmingham, Alabama, at $14,923, and Louisville, Kentucky, at $14,758.

Meanwhile, San Francisco, the third-most-expensive city when housing is included, fell to 30th place when housing was excluded.

The findings suggest that consumers moving to a city with lower housing costs may still encounter substantial expenses for transportation, insurance, utilities and other services.

The report said fraud detection systems went years without updates

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• A Senate investigation found that Tinder failed to update most of its artificial intelligence fraud detection models for years, allowing romance scammers to reach increasing numbers of users.

• Nearly 1.5 million scammers or other suspicious accounts on Tinder and Hinge matched with at least one U.S. user during the first nine months of 2025.

• Match Group has since introduced stronger security measures, including facial verification, which the company says reduced interactions with bad actors by more than 70%.

Millions of Americans looking for romance on dating apps may have been exposed to scammers because of outdated fraud detection systems, according to a new congressional investigation.

The investigation, released this week by Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), the ranking Democrat on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, found significant shortcomings in the security measures used by Match Group, the parent company of Tinder, Hinge, Match and Plenty of Fish.

Perhaps the most troubling finding was that Tinder had not updated most of its artificial intelligence models designed to identify scammers and other suspicious users for years, even as criminal networks became increasingly sophisticated.

The investigation also found that Tinder's systems were actually more likely to display profiles belonging to scammers or other bad actors than profiles belonging to legitimate users.

According to internal company data provided to Senate investigators, the median number of profile views received by a scammer on Tinder increased by more than 700% worldwide between May 2024 and December 2025.

During the first nine months of 2025, nearly 1.5 million accounts identified as scammers or other bad actors on Tinder and Hinge matched with at least one U.S. user. Nearly 500,000 of those accounts exchanged contact information with another user.

The findings raise questions about how effectively online dating platforms protect customers from criminals who use fabricated romantic relationships to steal money.

Victims describe devastating losses

The Senate investigation included interviews with people who had lost substantial sums of money to romance scammers.

One woman, who joined Tinder after losing her husband, met someone claiming to be from New Jersey. Over time, the man gained her trust before describing a succession of supposed emergencies, including problems on an oil rig, an arrest in Mexico, legal expenses and a heart attack.

Each crisis became another reason to request money.

Another woman met a man on Plenty of Fish in 2024 who claimed to be an engineer working in her state. Although she took precautions, including conducting a reverse image search, she eventually became convinced that his requests for financial assistance were legitimate.

Over two months, she sent nearly $100,000 in cryptocurrency before discovering the deception.

The scammer continued contacting her even after she blocked him, repeatedly changing telephone numbers and email addresses.

Such experiences illustrate why romance can be especially destructive. Victims often lose not only their savings but also their confidence in their own judgment and their willingness to trust others.

According to the Federal Trade Commission figures cited in the Senate announcement, Americans reported nearly $1.5 billion in romance scam losses in 2025, an increase of nearly 650% since 2019.

Match Group strengthens its defenses

The investigation also found evidence that Match Group has made significant improvements.

In December 2025, Tinder completed the nationwide rollout of a security feature called Face Check, requiring new users to complete a video selfie verification process.

According to information Match Group provided to Senate investigators, the technology reduced U.S. user interactions with scammers, bots and other bad actors by more than 70% within a month of implementation. The company reported that the improvement continued for at least seven months.

During the first half of 2026, Match Group also introduced a new AI model designed to examine profiles and other account information to identify potential scammers. Those changes followed repeated questions from Senate investigators about the company's existing safeguards.

Hassan welcomed the improvements but criticized the time it took to implement them.

During the course of our investigation, Match Group made progress in combating scammers but it shouldnt have taken so long, and theres still more that Match needs to do, Hassan said.

The investigation suggests that dating platforms must continually update their fraud detection systems because scammers are constantly changing their methods.

One former senior AI safety researcher told investigators that Tinder might need to retrain its fraud detection models at least monthly, depending on the effectiveness of its other monitoring systems.

How consumers can protect themselves

Although dating apps are introducing stronger security measures, the Senate report makes clear that consumers should not assume a profile is legitimate simply because it appears on a major dating platform or carries a verification badge.

Fraud prevention experts recommend taking several precautions:

• Never send money to someone you have not met in person. Requests involving medical emergencies, business problems, travel expenses or cryptocurrency investments are major warning signs.

• Be suspicious of attempts to move conversations off the dating platform. Scammers frequently encourage victims to switch to text messages or encrypted messaging apps, where the platform's safeguards may not apply.

• Verify photographs and identities. Reverse image searches and video conversations can help uncover deception, although increasingly sophisticated AI tools make verification more difficult.

• Watch for relationships that develop unusually quickly. Criminals often express strong romantic feelings early in a relationship to establish emotional dependence.

• Report suspicious profiles. Notify the dating platform and report suspected fraud to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.

The investigation could also lead to additional consumer protections. The Senate recently passed bipartisan legislation that would require dating platforms to notify users when they have interacted with an account subsequently banned for scamming.

For consumers, the central lesson is that improved technology can reduce exposure to fraud, but it cannot eliminate the risk. Even verified profiles should be approached cautiously, particularly when an online relationship turns into a request for money.

Self-checkout might save you time, but a few easy-to-miss mistakes could leave you paying more

• You're the cashier now: Self-checkout puts the scanning, weighing, and bagging in your hands, along with more opportunities to make mistakes.

• Small errors add up: Double scans, incorrect produce selections, and missing discounts can quietly inflate your grocery bill.

• Know when to skip it: Self-checkout is often convenient for a few items, but a regular cashier might be easier when your cart is full.

You've scanned the groceries, bagged everything yourself, wrestled with the machine over an unexpected item in the bagging area, and waited for an employee to approve your bananas.

Unfortunately, there's no paycheck for the work you just did. And if you're not paying attention, you could actually leave the store having spent more than you should.

Self-checkout was supposed to make grocery shopping faster and easier for everyone. But as a recent Yahoo article points out, the machines can sometimes feel more like a chore than a convenience.

Self-checkout also puts basically all of the responsibility on you to make sure everything rings up correctly. Here are five mistakes worth watching for so you dont overpay.

1. The produce guessing game

You know the drill. You put a tomato on the scale, and suddenly you're scrolling through a dozen different tomato varieties.

Was that a Roma? A vine-ripened? Organic? Choosing the wrong option can mean paying more than necessary.

Look at the produce sticker, which includes a four- or five-digit PLU code. Enter that code when available rather than guessing from the pictures. And don't automatically select organic unless that's actually what you bought.

Pro tip: Learn to crack the produce sticker code. If the sticker on that bell pepper has a five-digit code on it instead of four digits, you know its organic. This creates a quick and easy hack to make sure youre not paying more for organic when that wasnt your intention.

2. The dreaded double scan

Beep. Beep. Did you just scan that box of cereal twice? Or did the machine simply make a weird noise?

When you're rushing to get out of the store it's surprisingly easy to lose track. And a duplicate scan can turn a $5 purchase into a $10 purchase without you noticing.

Try to keep an eye on the screen as you scan, especially the item count and quantity. If something appears twice, ask the attendant to remove the extra charge before paying.

Pro tip: Watch out for those multi-buy promotions when using self-checkout. Ever see a sign advertising Buy 2, Get 1 Free or 3 for $10? Those deals sometimes have specific requirements, including buying the correct quantity, selecting eligible varieties, or mixing only certain products.

So, before you pay, always check that all qualifying items are included and the promotion was applied. It can be tricky as some discounts don't appear until the final item is scanned or the transaction is totaled.

3. The sale price that never showed up

You grabbed that pasta sauce because the shelf tag said $2.49. But when you scan it, the machine says it costs $3.99.

Maybe the promotion expired. Maybe you grabbed the wrong size. Or maybe the store's system hasn't been updated. Whatever the reason, you shouldn't automatically assume the register is right.

Be sure to watch the prices as they appear, particularly on advertised specials. If the discount doesn't show up, ask an employee to check the shelf price. While a bit of a hassle, taking a quick photo of a sale sign can also make it easier to resolve the pricing discrepancy.

Pro tip: When buying clearance items, be sure to scan the clearance price sticker, not the original barcode on the item. That package of chicken with a bright yellow $3-off sticker might still have its original barcode visible. Dont scan it, instead scan the barcode on the yellow sticker if there is one. Always look for a separate clearance barcode or special instructions on the markdown sticker.

4. Forgetting the loyalty discount

This one can be especially frustrating.

You carefully planned your shopping trip around digital coupons and member-only prices, only to discover you never entered your phone number. Or worse, the coupon you thought you'd clipped wasn't actually activated.

Always enter your loyalty information early in the transaction and verify that your discounts appear before you pay.

Some stores apply discounts near the end, so don't panic if they don't appear immediately. But be sure to not complete the transaction until you've confirmed all of your savings.

Pro tip: Be careful with the pesky quantity button. Some self-checkouts let you enter a quantity instead of scanning every identical item individually. That's super convenient until you accidentally enter 33 instead of three.

I speak from experience on this one, only use the quantity button when the store allows it for that particular item, and ALWAYS double-check the number.

5. Skipping the receipt check

After you've done all that work, the last thing you want is another assignment.

But spending 30 seconds reviewing your receipt could catch a mistake that costs you several dollars. Look for duplicate items, incorrect produce prices, missing promotions, and coupons that didn't apply.

Its smart to check your receipt before leaving the checkout area. It's usually easier to resolve a mistake while you're still in the store than to discover it after you've driven home.

When should you skip self-checkout altogether?

My rule of thumb is the more complicated your grocery cart, the less appealing self-checkout becomes.

Buying just five items? Sure, scanning them yourself makes the most sense. But if you're buying a slew of produce, got a few digital coupons, or a cart full of groceries that barely fits in the bagging area, a regular cashier is often the best choice.

A cashier can make mistakes, too. But having someone else handle the scanning gives you more opportunity to watch the prices as they pop-up on the screen.

Theres no doubt that self-checkout can be convenient, but convenience shouldn't cost you extra. And if the grocery store is going to make you do the cashier's job, the least you can do is make sure you're not paying for the privilege.