(NEW YORK) — Spicy condiments from spreads to sauce have been dubbed a top food trend of 2024, but one brand is alerting consumers to toss out some of its products, as they could be dangerous for anyone with a wheat allergy.
Vesta Fiery Gourmet Foods, Inc. issued a voluntary recall on Monday for five of its bottled hot sauces with varying degrees of heat, as they contain “undeclared wheat.”
The Raleigh, North Carolina-based food manufacturer shared the news in a company announcement posted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website on Tuesday.
The recall impacts 1.5-ounce glass jars of Benny T’s Vesta hot sauces, including Benny T’s Vesta Ghost, Benny T’s Vesta Hot, Benny T’s Vesta Reaper, Benny T’s Vesta Scorpion and Benny T’s Vesta Very Hot.
“On 1/4/24 the firm was notified by the North Carolina Depart of Agriculture and Consumer Services that the label does not state the flour used is a wheat flour,” the company stated in its recall announcement, noting the “people who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.”
Each of the five hot sauces in question have a use by date of December 2024 and were distributed nationwide between Oct. 1, 2023, to Jan. 4, 2024.
Click here for the full product details and label information of the affected products.
According to Vesta, the recalled products were packaged in glass jars and sold “primarily online, in retail stores and deli cases located throughout the United States.”
As of time of publication, no illnesses have been reported.
Consumers who have may have purchased these products are urged not to consume them or to discard the product.
Consumers with questions may contact Chris Tuorto at 919-656-7688, Monday – Friday, 8AM – 9PM EST.
A representative for Vesta Fiery Gourmet Foods did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
(NEW YORK) — The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday gave its approval for some Bitcoin ETFs, just a day after a fake post on the agency’s account on X made a similar announcement and sent the value of Bitcoin soaring.
The price of Bitcoin vaulted skyward on Tuesday afternoon after the SEC appeared to deliver a major breakthrough for the cryptocurrency.
Minutes later, SEC Chair Gary Gensler punctured the euphoria, saying on X that a hacker had commandeered the agency’s account and sent out a fake message. The price of Bitcoin plummeted.
Some analysts say Bitcoin ETFs — Exchange-Traded Funds — could bring tens of billions of dollars of investment this year and catapult the price of Bitcoin.
In a statement on Wednesday, Gensler confirmed the decision but offered a note of caution about cryptocurrency.
After announcing that the SEC had “approved the listing and tradition” of some Bitcoin ETFs, Gensler added: “We did not approve or endorse bitcoin. Investors should remain cautious about the myriad risks associated with bitcoin and products whose value is tied to crypto.”
A Bitcoin ETF allows investors to buy into an asset that tracks the price movement of Bitcoin, while avoiding the inconvenience and risk of purchasing the crypto coin itself. But critics warn the investment product could do harm to investors exposed to the volatility and uncertainty of crypto.
Here’s what to know about Bitcoin ETFs and what’s at stake in their potential approval:
What is a Bitcoin ETF?
A Bitcoin ETF uses a decades-old trading method as a means of easing investment in digital assets.
An ETF amounts to a bucket of securities that gives investors a way to bet that an underlying asset will increase in price without purchasing that asset.
For instance, an ETF for gold allows individuals and institutions to put money on the price movement of the precious metal rather than buy, lug and store the physical item.
A Bitcoin ETF, in turn, gives investors access to the cryptocurrency market without facing the technical impediments and fees associated with navigating a crypto exchange.
Traders could find Bitcoin on traditional trading platforms and markets that many of them find trustworthy, assuaging concern about relatively young and scandal-ridden crypto technology.
Top investment firms like Fidelity and BlackRock are set to offer Bitcoin ETF products if they gain federal approval.
While nearly 90% of U.S. adults say they’ve heard at least a little about cryptocurrency, three-quarters say they aren’t confident about the safety and trustworthiness of current means for investing in the products, a Pew survey in April found.
What will happen after Bitcoin ETFs are made available?
Some analysts say the new products could unleash a flow of investment and trigger a major spike in the price of Bitcoin, supercharging the most well-known and successful digital asset.
A Bitcoin ETF would elicit more than $14 billion of investment inflows within its first year on the market and nearly $40 billion by the end of the third year, according to Galaxy Digital, a crypto management and research firm.
Standard Chartered Bank, a U.K.-based lender, offered a more bullish assessment, saying the financial instrument could induce as much as $100 billion worth of inflows by the end of this year, crypto outlet CoinDesk reported on Tuesday.
Under such a scenario, the price of Bitcoin could reach near $200,000 by the end of 2025, more than quadrupling the current value of the crypto coin, Standard Chartered Bank said, according to CoinDesk.
The price of Bitcoin has jumped nearly 70% over the past six months, in part due to anticipation of a surge if the Bitcoin ETF gains approval.
Critics of the financial instrument, however, say it could wreak significant damage to investors due to the volatility of Bitcoin as well as its potential use in illicit activities.
Dennis Kelleher, the CEO of nonprofit transparency group Better Markets, co-authored a letter to an SEC official last week warning of significant risk posed by the pending approval.
“It would be a grave if not historic mistake almost certainly leading to massive investor harm if the SEC approves the pending rule changes,” Kelleher wrote.
He added, “The massive and unrelenting fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market means that approving these products would expose those investors to the very harms that the SEC exists to prevent.”
Why does this matter?
The crypto industry entered this year bruised after a series of high-profile collapses and company scandals.
Sam Bankman-Fried, formerly one of the industry’s most prominent figures, could serve decades in prison after he was convicted on fraud charges in a federal trial. Changpeng Zhao, the founder and former CEO of major cryptocurrency exchange Binance, faces a jail sentence of up to 18 months after he pleaded guilty to federal charges of money laundering.
Government approval for a Bitcoin ETF injects a much-needed jolt of good news for the ailing sector. But, as some critics fear, the financial product could widen the reach of crypto and pose further risk.
“We believe retail investors should wait to see whether these products can garner enough traction to see the light of day — let alone see convincing performance,” Manan Agarwal and Sabeeh Ashhar, analysts with financial services firm Morningstar, wrote in August.
(NEW YORK) — The price of Bitcoin vaulted skyward on Tuesday afternoon after the Securities and Exchange Commission appeared to deliver a major breakthrough for the cryptocurrency in a post on X.
Minutes later, SEC Chair Gary Gensler punctured the euphoria, saying on X that a hacker had commandeered the agency’s account and sent out a fake message. The price of Bitcoin plummeted.
The frenzy swirled around a long-awaited approval for a trading product called a Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF), which some analysts say could bring tens of billions of dollars of investment this year and catapult the price of Bitcoin.
On Wednesday, the SEC faces a deadline to decide whether Bitcoin ETFs are legal.
A Bitcoin ETF would allow investors to buy into an asset that tracks the price movement of Bitcoin, while avoiding the inconvenience and risk of purchasing the crypto coin itself. But critics warn the investment product could do harm to investors exposed to the volatility and uncertainty of crypto.
Here’s what to know about Bitcoin ETFs and what’s at stake in their potential approval:
What is a Bitcoin ETF?
A Bitcoin ETF uses a decades-old trading method as a means of easing investment in digital assets.
An ETF amounts to a bucket of securities that gives investors a way to bet that an underlying asset will increase in price without purchasing that asset.
For instance, an ETF for gold allows individuals and institutions to put money on the price movement of the precious metal rather than buy, lug and store the physical item.
A Bitcoin ETF, in turn, would give investors access to the cryptocurrency market without facing the technical impediments and fees associated with navigating a crypto exchange.
Traders could find Bitcoin on traditional trading platforms and markets that many of them find trustworthy, assuaging concern about relatively young and scandal-ridden crypto technology.
Top investment firms like Fidelity and BlackRock are set to offer Bitcoin ETF products if they gain federal approval.
While nearly 90% of U.S. adults say they’ve heard at least a little about cryptocurrency, three-quarters say they aren’t confident about the safety and trustworthiness of current means for investing in the products, a Pew survey in April found.
What would happen if Bitcoin ETFs are made available?
Some analysts say the new products could unleash a flow of investment and trigger a major spike in the price of Bitcoin, supercharging the most well-known and successful digital asset.
A Bitcoin ETF would elicit more than $14 billion of investment inflows within its first year on the market and nearly $40 billion by the end of the third year, according to Galaxy Digital, a crypto management and research firm.
Standard Chartered Bank, a U.K.-based lender, offered a more bullish assessment, saying the financial instrument could induce as much as $100 billion worth of inflows by the end of this year, crypto outlet CoinDesk reported on Tuesday.
Under such a scenario, the price of Bitcoin could reach near $200,000 by the end of 2025, more than quadrupling the current value of the crypto coin, Standard Chartered Bank said, according to CoinDesk.
The price of Bitcoin has jumped nearly 70% over the past six months, in part due to anticipation of a surge if the Bitcoin ETF gains approval.
Critics of the financial instrument, however, say it could wreak significant damage to investors due to the volatility of Bitcoin as well as its potential use in illicit activities.
Dennis Kelleher, the CEO of nonprofit transparency group Better Markets, co-authored a letter to an SEC official last week warning of significant risk posed by the pending approval.
“It would be a grave if not historic mistake almost certainly leading to massive investor harm if the SEC approves the pending rule changes,” Kelleher wrote.
He added, “The massive and unrelenting fraud and manipulation in the bitcoin market means that approving these products would expose those investors to the very harms that the SEC exists to prevent.”
Why does this matter?
The crypto industry entered this year bruised after a series of high-profile collapses and company scandals.
Sam Bankman-Fried, formerly one of the industry’s most prominent figures, could serve decades in prison after he was convicted on fraud charges in a federal trial. Changpeng Zhao, the founder and former CEO of major cryptocurrency exchange Binance, faces a jail sentence of up to 18 months after he pleaded guilty to federal charges of money laundering.
Government approval for a Bitcoin ETF could inject a much-needed jolt of good news for the ailing sector. But, as some critics fear, the financial product could widen the reach of crypto and pose further risk.
“We believe retail investors should wait to see whether these products can garner enough traction to see the light of day — let alone see convincing performance,” Manan Agarwal and Sabeeh Ashhar, analysts with financial services firm Morningstar, wrote in August.
(NEW YORK) — After a high-flying performance last year, the stock market has dropped at the outset of 2024. The turnabout has sent some investors looking for alternatives, including certificates of deposit, or CDs.
A CD is a type of savings account that offers a fixed interest rate over a given period of time. If depositors remove their funds before their agreed-upon end date, however, they incur a penalty.
Investor returns for CDs have soared over the past year in response to a near-historic series of interest rate hikes at the Federal Reserve.
That trend has made this lesser-known financial instrument more attractive than it has been in years, experts told ABC News. Since the Fed expects to cut interest rates this year, they added, interested investors should move quickly before potential gains diminish.
“Now is definitely a good time to look at getting into a CD,” Cassandra Happe, an analyst at personal finance firm WalletHub, told ABC News. “Because rates are so high.”
“Investors should definitely keep a potential rate cut in mind,” Happe added, noting that some forecasters expect the Fed to slash rates within the next few months.
CDs do carry downsides, however, experts added. The fixed interest rate promised by a CD means it lacks the possibility of enormous gains, unlike a riskier instrument such as the stock market.
The best interest rate available for a one-year CD stands at 5.66%, according to a list of rates compiled by WalletHub. The shortest term length available, three months, still returns interest of up to 5.55%, WalletHub found.
Interest rate hikes at the Fed improve returns for CDs because the adjustments allow banks to charge borrowers higher costs to take out loans, Reena Aggarwal, professor of finance and director of the Georgetown Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy, told ABC News.
“When interest rates are high, banks can make a loan — for example, a mortgage — at a higher rate,” Aggarwal said. “So they can afford to pay their depositors more.”
When banks raise interest rates for savings accounts, such as CDs, the financial firms entice customers to deposit money with them instead of a rival, which in turn bolsters the capital a bank holds on hand to generate profits through additional loans, Aggarwal added.
“It’s all about competition,” she said.
A major benefit of CDs stems from the iron-clad certainty of their returns, Yiming Ma, a finance professor at Columbia University Business School, told ABC News.
“You’re guaranteed your money,” Ma said.
Typically, long-term CDs spanning three or five years deliver higher interest rates than short-term CDs, since a wider time horizon requires investors to part with their funds for a longer period.
However, the market currently offers higher returns for short-term CDs rather than long-term ones, in part because forecasters expect interest rates to fall steadily over the coming years, experts said. That dynamic offers investors a relatively rare opportunity to generate elevated gains without waiting a long time, they added.
“This adds to the attractiveness of a short-term CD,” Ken Tumin, a senior industry analyst for savings at online loan company LendingTree, told ABC News.
Still, he added, a long-term CD may also be an attractive option right now for investors seeking gains over an extended period, since the returns on offer for these instruments could come down significantly if the Fed cuts rates.
“A long-term CD would be beneficial if rates do fall,” Tumin said, noting that investors who took action beforehand would be locked into the elevated fixed rates for several years.
While CDs carry advantages, investors should be aware of key trade-offs, experts said.
The fixed rate of CDs promises stability but precludes the chance of stellar returns. A one-year CD delivers a return of more than 5%. By contrast, the S&P 500 — the index that most people’s 401(k)s track — climbed 24% last year. Of course, the stock market risks significant losses, as well.
Meanwhile, since CDs impose a penalty for the early withdrawal of money, they pose a problem for investors who may need to call upon the funds before a selected end date.
“CDs are good as a safe and higher-return investment for funds that you don’t need to use immediately,” said Ma, of Columbia.
(LOS ANGELES) — Fast food workers defied skeptics roughly a decade ago with the “Fight for $15,” a campaign demanding an industry-wide pay floor at more than double the federal minimum wage.
That aspiration spread across the low-wage workforce, helping to achieve a base pay of $15 per hour in six states and dozens of cities that play host to tens of millions of workers.
Fast food workers in California will soon attain a higher baseline: $20 an hour. The fresh standard could hold significant implications for workers nationwide, experts told ABC News.
Low-wage workers in California across industries will certainly see a raise as their employers compete against the pay offered by fast food companies, economists said.
The approach in California has elicited copycat campaigns in other states and may become a fixture of demands among low-wage workers engaged in union drives.
“This creates a new benchmark,” Ken Jacobs, co-chair of the Labor Center at the University of California, Berkeley, told ABC News. “We went through the Fight for $15 and now $20 is out there as a new target wage.”
The National Restaurant Association, an industry trade group, did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
In September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed into law the measure that established a $20 an hour minimum wage for some 500,000 fast food workers. The pay floor will go into effect on April 1.
The minimum wage overall for workers in California, by contrast, stands at $16 an hour.
The disparity in minimum pay between fast food employees and the rest of the workforce sets up a dynamic referred to as “spillover effects,” in which a pay increase for one set of workers drives up the wages of a different group, Paul Wolfson, a research fellow at Dartmouth College who studies the minimum wage, told ABC News.
“Anyone in California making less than the new minimum wage in fast food will say, ‘Hey, I can get a job at Wendy’s, McDonald’s, or Taco Bell and make more money,'” Wolfson said.
At risk of a failure to recruit and retain workers, California-based employers in other sectors will likely respond by raising wages, economists said.
Even more, the legislation could influence the pay of workers beyond California, they added.
First off, workers within commuting distance of the California border could travel to the state for a job that qualifies for the $20 an hour minimum or pose a credible concern for current employers about the possibility, some economists said.
“It could have small effects right along the border,” Jacobs said, acknowledging that few major population centers are located in the area alongside California, unlike the region surrounding New York.
The new minimum wage for fast food workers could deliver a boost for low-wage workers nationwide, meanwhile, if it adds momentum to similar campaigns in other states or helps unionizing workers demand $20 an hour in collective bargaining, economists and advocates said.
The California law, however, would not put direct pressure on low-wage employers located far from the state, since workers are unlikely to move a long distance for the pay increase.
“The main issue here is a political question,” said Jacobs. “In other states or cities, do we see governments enact similar policies?”
Such a push appears to have begun. Nursing home workers in Minnesota are set to receive a pay increase in August after a newly established statewide board sets standards for the industry.
A bill pending in the Illinois legislature would create such a board for workers who educate and care for young children. A Massachusetts measure would set a minimum wage for rideshare drivers.
The approach allows hundreds of thousands of fast food workers to bargain collectively over the terms of their work at large companies across a given sector, rather than be forced to form a union at a single workplace and negotiate with one employer at a time, Paul Sonn, state policy program director at the nonprofit National Employment Law Project, told ABC News.
The strategy circumvents difficulties faced by traditional union drives under U.S. labor law, Sonn added.
Starbucks workers, for instance, have organized more than 360 stores since 2021. But the union and Starbucks have yet to reach an agreement on a labor contract at any of the stores.
In a previous statement to ABC News, a Starbucks spokesperson faulted the union Workers United for a failure to meet with company representatives over contract bargaining.
If employers refuse to bargain with workers, Sonn said, the sector-wide approach offers them a way to attain a raise.
“This is a way for workers to improve their industries when their employers are getting away with stalling,” he added.
(NEW YORK) — Days away from the first ballots cast in the 2024 primary election, former President Donald Trump holds a commanding lead over his Republican rivals and tops President Joe Biden in some head-to-head polls.
Trump’s standing appears to stem in part from widespread frustration over Biden’s handling of the economy. Only 30% of voters approve of what Biden has done on that issue, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll from the fall.
While such voter sentiment has drawn significant attention, less focus has been paid to what Trump plans to do if he takes the reins of the economy next year.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Here’s what to know about Trump’s economic proposals for a potential second term and how some economists view them:
Trade
Trump plans to ratchet up a confrontational trade policy instituted during his first term, promising to impose tariffs on most imported goods.
Speaking with Fox Business in August, Trump said the tax on imported items could ultimately stand at 10%.
Trump also plans to tighten constraints on China-made products, including a “4-year plan to phase out all Chinese imports of essential goods,” according to a set of proposals released in February.
Stephen Moore, who previously served as an economic adviser to Trump and says he has helped shape Trump’s 2024 agenda, told ABC News that the tariff policies would hinder foreign producers and make domestic industries more competitive.
In turn, the policy would create jobs and boost manufacturing in the U.S., Moore said.
“Trump wants jobs here in America,” Moore added. “He wants things made in America.”
Many economists, including Moore, believe that a near-universal tariff would raise the prices of many consumer goods, however.
The price increases would primarily hurt low- and middle-income households, since consumer spending makes up a disproportionately large share of their expenses, Alan Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton University and a former member of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Bill Clinton, told ABC News.
Gregory Daco, chief economist at global consulting firm EY, noted that the elevated prices could also weigh on consumer spending and in turn slow economic growth. Plus, he added, the potential shift toward American manufacturing would carry sizable up-front expenses.
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” Daco told ABC News. “It takes time to build factories and it costs a lot.”
Tax cuts
The revenue generated by a sweeping set of tariffs would allow the Trump administration to reduce taxes for individuals and companies, the Trump campaign said in February.
But the details of a tax cut proposal remain uncertain, Moore said. “This is all in motion,” Moore added. “Nothing has been decided.”
Trump is committed, however, to extending the tax cuts signed into law during his first term when they begin to phase out in 2025, Moore added.
“He clearly wants to make sure the tax rates don’t go up as they’re supposed to do if they let his tax plan expire,” Moore said.
However, a recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, said that making permanent the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 would add $3.5 trillion to the nation’s deficit.
The U.S. currently holds roughly $31.4 trillion in debt. In a report in February, the CBO projected the federal debt will grow nearly $20 trillion by the end of 2033.
“Extending the tax cuts would only worsen the already deep budget deficit problem that we’re dealing with,” Blinder said.
While the economy registered strong growth over the year after Trump’s tax cut took effect, the measure accounted for little or none of the performance, according to a study from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in 2019.
“The tax cuts did not create investment or productivity miracles,” Blinder said. “Nobody should’ve expected that they would.”
Energy
Trump has vowed to slash U.S. energy and electricity costs by ramping up domestic production of fossil fuels.
On the campaign trail, Trump has summed up this approach with a slogan: “Drill, baby, drill.”
The agenda includes tax breaks for producers of oil, gas and coal.
Trump also plans to do away with much of the $369 billion Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate measure in U.S. history, which includes incentives for clean energy projects and the purchase of electric vehicles, the Financial Times reported in November.
Under Biden, meanwhile, the U.S. set a record for oil output this year. As of December, the country was on pace to increase its supply of oil by an average of 1.4 million barrels per day, according to the International Energy Agency, a government group.
Blinder, of Princeton, questioned a potential expansion in production of fossil fuels, which make up a key driver of climate change. Economic policy should strike a balance between productivity and environmental concerns, Blinder said.
“One basic principle of taxation is you want to tax bad things and subsidize at least some good things,” he added. “I find it hard to see that with providing tax breaks for fossil fuels.”
(NEW YORK) — TGI Fridays is starting off the new year by shuttering dozens of locations to support the restaurant chain’s long-term growth strategy, which it said includes appointing a former stakeholder to lead select regional locations “into a new phase of revitalization.”
The Dallas-based casual dining bar and grill chain announced it will soon be closing 36 of its “under-performing corporate-owned restaurants” in the U.S. and selling off “eight previously corporate-owned restaurants in the Northeast to former CEO Ray Blanchette.”
While TGI Fridays did not specify in the release which U.S. markets would be impacted by the closures, it underscored that there will be “more than 1,000 transfer opportunities,” which the company said “represents over 80% of total impacted employees.”
Since 2014, TGI Fridays restaurants have depleted nationwide by more than 50%, down from 500 eateries to just 233.
The restaurant chain, known for its social, weekend-ready atmosphere and low-price happy hour specials, called the new year moves “an era of transformation,” with new transitions in place to drive revenue while remaining committed to the overall guest experience.
Ray Risley, U.S. president and COO, said in a statement that TGI Friday’s has “identified opportunities to optimize and streamline our operations to ensure we are best positioned to meet and exceed on that brand promise.”
The sale to Blanchette comes on the heels of a recent move to bolster TGI Fridays’ leadership team, which included appointments of Weldon Spangler as CEO, Risley as U.S. president and COO, and Nik Rupp as president and COO of international, and CFO.
“As we continue along our path of transformation to revitalize the Fridays brand and implement a long-term growth strategy, we see a bright future for TGI Fridays,” Spangler stated in the press release. “We are at the helm of a pivotal moment that will allow us to explore boundless advancement, expansion, and innovation to keep delivering ‘That Fridays Feeling’ that our fans know and love.”
Risley added that by strengthening the TGI Friday’s franchise model and closing underperforming stores, “we are creating an unprecedented opportunity for Fridays to drive forward its vision for the future.”
TGI Fridays did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment as to which locations and how many total employees would be impacted by the closures.
(NEW YORK) — Starbucks will become the first nationwide coffee retailer to accept reusable cups for mobile orders, effective immediately, the coffeehouse chain said in a release Wednesday. Customers will now also have the same reusable cup option for drive-thru orders for the first time.
Coffee drinkers can now fill a “clean, personal cup for every visit,” whether their order comes via drive-thru, mobile, or cafe purchase at all company-operated and participating licensed stores, according to the release.
“With the majority of Starbucks beverages enjoyed on the go, this milestone unlocks a big opportunity for customers to choose reusables and supports Starbucks’ commitment to reduce waste by 50 percent by 2030,” Starbucks said in the release.
The company also noted the effort to more broadly encourage reusable cups falls in line with Starbucks’ 2022 goal of reducing cup waste sent to landfills.
“At Starbucks, we envision a future where every beverage can be served in a reusable cup,” Michael Kobori, Starbucks chief sustainability officer, said in a statement.
“Offering customers more options to use a personal cup when they visit Starbucks marks tangible progress towards the future. We know our customers are passionate about the planet, and now, they can join us in our efforts to give more than we take, no matter how they order,” Kobori’s statement continued.
The new program comes with a financial incentive as well. Customers who use a personal cup will receive a ten-cent discount on their beverage. For Starbucks Rewards customers in the U.S., participating customers will receive 25 Bonus Stars.
The release instructs customers at drive-thru locations to notify the barista that they have a reusable cup. Next, “baristas will collect customers’ personal cup without the lid using a contactless vessel to ensure hygiene and safety. The beverage will be returned the same way.”
For mobile ordering, customers should select “Customization” and “Personal Cup” and hand their personal cups to the barista once they arrive at the store.
The release emphasizes the importance of making sure personal cups are.
“For customers’ safety and ours, baristas cannot rinse personal cups in Starbucks equipment sinks. For this reason, no dirty cups will be accepted,” the company said in the release.
According to Starbucks, after a “personal cup test” at 200 drive-thrus across Colorado last spring, the company decided to go forward with the program nationwide.
“As long as we are following all our procedures and steps, it doesn’t add any more time, and it is actually making customers happier,” said Brook, a partner who worked at a store that participated in the Colorado test, per the release. “This has been a really big hit.”
(NEW YORK) — Dozens of families who are suing Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, won a legal victory Tuesday when a judge in California ruled their lawsuit against the social media giant may continue.
Over 60 family members of children who allegedly obtained illegal drugs through Snapchat are part of the lawsuit, Neville et al v. Snap Inc., which was first filed in October 2022. In all but two cases, the child died after ingesting the drugs allegedly obtained through Snapchat.
Snap previously attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed back in October, but Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lawrence P. Riff ruled Tuesday that the parents’ lawsuit may continue to trial.
In his ruling, the judge overruled Snap’s objections to 12 of 16 claims in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that “Snap and Snapchat’s role in illicit drug sales to teens was the foreseeable result of the designs, structures, and policies Snap chose to implement to increase its revenues,” according to court filings shared by the Social Media Victims Law Center, which is representing the families.
Some of Snapchat’s features that set it apart from other apps — like automatically deleted messages, geolocation functionality and the My Eyes Only privacy feature — make illegal activities harder to track and are especially attractive to drug dealers, the lawsuit alleges.
Television host Dr. Laura Berman and her husband Sam Chapman’s son Sammy was 16 years old and a junior in high school when he died in 2021 after overdosing on a fentanyl-laced pill from a person he allegedly met on Snapchat, according to Chapman and Berman.
“He did not mean to take fentanyl. He did not want to take fentanyl,” Berman, whose family is part of the lawsuit, told ABC News in December. “But what he took was counterfeit, and it was fentanyl.”
Amy Neville, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, told ABC News’ Good Morning America in October that her son Alexander was 14 years old and preparing for his freshman year of high school when he died in 2020 after taking a fentanyl-laced oxycodone pill that Neville said he allegedly obtained from a person he met on Snapchat.
“Kids are losing their lives, and they swept it under the rug. They had their chance to do the right thing, and they chose profits over people,” Neville told GMA, referring to Snapchat. “The way that we are going to bring Snapchat and other social media companies to the table is through lawsuits and legislation. That is plain and simple.”
In response to the judge’s ruling allowing the lawsuit to move forward, Ashley Adams, a spokeswoman for Snap Inc., told GMA the social media company will “continue to defend” itself in court.
“The fentanyl epidemic has taken the lives of too many people and we have deep empathy for families who have suffered unimaginable losses,” Adams said in a statement. “At Snap, we are working diligently to stop drug dealers from abusing our platform, and deploy technologies to proactively identify and shut down dealers, support law enforcement efforts to help bring dealers to justice, and educate our community and the general public about the dangers of fentanyl.”
Adams continued, “While we are committed to advancing our efforts to stop drug dealers from engaging in illegal activity on Snapchat, we believe the plaintiffs’ allegations are both legally and factually flawed and will continue to defend that position in court.”
Snap Inc. has said previously that the company uses “cutting-edge technology” in trying to keep users safe. The company has also pointed to its work supporting law enforcement investigations into drug dealers, and its work creating a Family Center to help provide parents with more visibility into their kids’ actions on Snapchat.
Matthew P. Bergman, the attorney for the families, said that Tuesday’s ruling marks a “first” in the effort to “hold social media companies accountable.”
“Today’s ruling marks the first time a court has allowed parents to hold social media companies accountable for facilitating the sale of deadly drugs,” Berman said in a statement Tuesday. “Fentanyl is the largest killer of kids under 18 and social media plays a huge role the deadly drug sales that have resulted in a 350% increase in teen deaths over the past three years.”
He continued, “Parents who lost children to fentanyl poisoning will now be able to move forward with lawsuit, uncover evidence of Snapchat’s contribution to illegal drug sales and by holding Snap legally accountable spare other families the unspeakable grief they experience every day.”
(NEW YORK) — Mortgage rates have plummeted in recent weeks, boosting the prospects of homebuyers previously stifled by high borrowing costs.
Many forecasters predict mortgage rates will drop further, however, since the Federal Reserve expects to cut its benchmark interest rate this year.
Those circumstances pose a quandary for buyers: Jump into a newly attractive market that promises thousands of dollars in gains or wait for the possibility of an even more favorable one.
Homebuyers would be well-served by a leap into the current market, since the movement of mortgage rates often proves difficult to predict and purchasers reserve the ability to refinance if rates continue to fall, experts told ABC News.
But that approach does carry risks, some experts added, noting the loss of additional time to pad one’s finances as well as the possibility of a decline in home value after the purchase if the market worsens.
“If you need to buy a property, go ahead and buy it,” Marti Subrahmanyam, a professor of finance and business at New York University, told ABC News. “Don’t try to time the market.”
Last year, mortgage rates reached their highest level in more than two decades.
But rates have declined sharply over the past few months. As of last week, the average interest rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage stood at roughly 6.6%, according to FreddieMac. That amounts to more than a percentage point drop from a peak reached in October.
Each percentage point decrease in a mortgage rate can take away thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in costs each year, depending on the price of the house.
The fall of mortgage rates coincided with an announcement from the Fed that it expects to cut interest rates this year by an amount equivalent to three quarter-point reductions.
Such plans would reverse a near-historic series of rate increases over the past year that sent mortgage rates soaring.
Mortgage rates closely track with 10-year treasury bond yields, which last month reached lows last seen in August. Those yields are highly sensitive to the Fed’s interest rate moves.
“Treasury rates are coming down — and as treasury rates come down, so will mortgage rates,” Susan Wachter, a professor of real estate at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, told ABC News.
Even though mortgage rates could continue to fall, experts said, it makes sense to jump into the market because shifts in rates often defy expectations.
“I would be wary of advising prospective homebuyers to delay their purchase in hopes of better terms in the future,” Julia Fonseca, a professor at the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “It’s very hard to time the market.”
Lu Liu, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, echoed this view.
“Households should make their housing decisions in line with their needs,” Liu told ABC News. “It’s very hard to accurately predict long-term interest rates.”
Plus, experts added, homebuyers can opt to refinance their homes at relatively low cost if rates move further downward.
“It’s quite efficient to refinance,” Wachter said.
This approach does carry some downsides, however, some experts noted.
If homebuyers move quickly, they cut down the time available to add to their savings before taking on the significant expense of a mortgage.
Purchasers also run the risk of snatching up a house right before the market declines, in which case the home could lose value almost immediately.
“The risks are that housing prices may plummet,” Wachter said, noting that such an outcome would likely require a severe recession that triggers layoffs and tanks demand for homes.
Optimism has grown about the outlook for the U.S. economy, however. Experts widely expect the economy to slow but not shrink over the next year.
“That risk of significant declines in housing prices I believe is off the table,” Wachter said.
Ultimately, the decision to buy a house requires a case-by-case assessment of factors that extend well beyond borrowing costs, some experts said.
“Whether now is a good time to jump back in depends on your personal situation,” Liu said.
