Current Events in July 2025

• Assigned seating option becomes available for flights starting January 27, 2026

• Customers can select Extra Legroom, Preferred, and Standard seats during booking

• New group-based boarding process also debuts to streamline boarding experience

In a major shift from its long-standing policy of open seating, Southwest Airlines has announced that beginning July 29, customers booking flights for travel on or after January 27, 2026, will have the option to select their seat at the time of booking.

The change marks a significant evolution for the airline, which has operated with an open seating model for more than 50 years. The move aims to offer passengers greater choice and control over their travel experience, while addressing frequent customer feedback.

“Our Customers want more choice and greater control over their travel experience,” said Tony Roach, Executive Vice President of Customer & Brand at Southwest Airlines. “Assigned seating unlocks new opportunities—including the ability to select Extra Legroom seats—and removes the uncertainty of not knowing where they will sit in the cabin.”

Seat selection and fare bundles

The new system will allow passengers to choose from fare bundles that include access to different seat types:

• Extra Legroom

• Preferred

• Standard

Customers can also purchase upgrades to access more desirable seats or enhanced travel perks.

Southwest Rapid Rewards Credit Cardmembers—depending on the card they hold—will be allowed to select seats at booking or up to 48 hours prior to departure, regardless of fare type, including Basic Fares. Additionally, A-List and A-List Preferred Members will receive seat selection benefits at booking on any fare.

A new group-based boarding process

With the introduction of assigned seating, Southwest will roll out a boarding system tailored to the new model. Passengers will be grouped and boarded based on seat location:

• Groups 1–2: Passengers in Extra Legroom seats

• Earlier Boarding: Premium fares, tier members, and credit card members

• Optional Priority Boarding: Available for purchase beginning 24 hours before departure

The new process is designed to make boarding smoother and more efficient, reducing the confusion and seat-saving behaviors sometimes associated with open seating.

In typical Southwest fashion, the airline is leaning into its trademark humor to promote the changes. A new campaign titled “Are You Sitting Down?” plays on the irony of introducing assigned seats—a long-debated topic among frequent flyers.

A major shift in airline culture

The move to assigned seating is a bold change for Southwest, long known for its unique first-come, first-served boarding policy. While many legacy carriers have emphasized tiered seating and priority boarding for years, Southwest’s simplified approach has remained a defining feature of its brand.

With these changes, however, the airline is signaling a new era—one that maintains its commitment to “legendary Customer Service” while adapting to the modern traveler's expectations for flexibility, comfort, and predictability.

Passengers can learn more about seating options and boarding procedures at Southwest.com.

• More than 90 labor, civil rights, environmental, and consumer groups rally to demand people-first AI policy

• Coalition says Trump’s executive order is a “billion-dollar giveaway to Big Tech” that threatens workers, public safety, and democracy

• The People’s AI Action Plan aims to put everyday Americans—not tech billionaires—at the center of AI governance

A coalition of more than 90 organizations from across the labor, consumer rights, environmental justice, and civil society sectors unveiled the People’s AI Action Plan today, calling it a direct counter to the Trump administration’s forthcoming artificial intelligence executive order, which critics say is being driven by Big Tech interests.

The new People’s AI Action Plan is being launched just days before the White House is expected to release its industry-backed AI agenda on July 23. Advocates warn that the administration’s plan prioritizes Silicon Valley profits over public safety, workers’ rights, and democratic accountability.

“The White House AI Action Plan is written by Big Tech interests invested in advancing AI that’s used on us, not by us,” said Sarah Myers West and Amba Kak, co-directors of the AI Now Institute. “It’s time for a People’s Action Plan that puts the needs of everyday Americans over corporate profits.”

A warning against deregulated AI expansion

The coalition denounced what it described as the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to deregulate the AI industry and shield tech companies from accountability. These concerns have intensified in the wake of a failed congressional proposal that would have given tech companies 10 years of immunity from state-level AI laws—an idea defeated after a 99-1 public-driven backlash.

“Trump’s latest AI directive is a billion-dollar giveaway to Big Tech that puts corporate profits ahead of public safety,” said J.B. Branch of Public Citizen. “Instead of enforcing guardrails, this administration is gutting oversight.”

Nurses, too, expressed alarm about the increasing use of untested AI tools in healthcare settings.

“We support AI when it improves care—not when it turns patients into guinea pigs to boost profits,” said Cathy Kennedy, RN and president of National Nurses United.

What the People’s AI Action Plan demands

The plan outlines a vision for AI that supports:

• Good jobs and worker protections

• Accountability and transparency in AI use

• Clean, safe, and equitable energy and infrastructure

• Strong public institutions and community input

• Fair competition and relief from tech monopolies

The coalition asserts that AI governance must be democratic, inclusive, and focused on public well-being. That includes limiting AI deployment in coercive settings like immigration enforcement, schools, and workplaces—especially where civil rights violations have already occurred.

• Foot traffic at Trader Joe’s, Aldi, and Lidl surged ahead of the broader grocery industry in early 2025

• Trader Joe’s gains momentum in California, while Aldi’s new stores continue to draw growing crowds

• Lidl shifts its shopper base, attracting more suburban and affluent customers

Discount and specialty grocers Aldi, Trader Joe’s, and Lidl are rapidly reshaping the U.S. grocery landscape, according to a new report from data analytics firm Placer.ai. The trio is growing foot traffic at a significantly faster pace than the overall grocery market—and carving out loyal followings through low prices, streamlined offerings, and targeted expansion.

Trader Joe’s draws California shoppers—and keeps them

Trader Joe’s continues to see some of its strongest gains in its home state of California, where it launched in 1967. The chain, known for its private-label products and cult-like following, increased its share of grocery visits in California to 15.7% in the first half of 2025, up from 13.2% in 2019.

That growth came even as competitors lost ground. Safeway dropped to 24.7%, Vons fell to 14.9%, and Ralphs declined to 17.6%. Stater Bros. was the exception, climbing a full percentage point to 15.3%.

“This success underscores the value of investing in product and community—two areas where Trader Joe’s excels,” the report said.

Nationwide, Trader Joe’s saw an impressive 11.9% year-over-year increase in foot traffic—far above the 1.5% overall industry growth.

Aldi’s footprint grows—and so does per-store traffic

Aldi, the German no-frills chain, isn’t just opening more stores—it’s getting busier at each one. Placer.ai reports that average visits per Aldi location are up 1.6% from 2024, and a staggering 26.7% higher than in 2022.

That suggests Aldi isn’t simply cannibalizing its own business with new locations—it’s expanding its reach. As of late June, Aldi operated 2,547 U.S. stores, according to Scrapehero.com.

Year-over-year, Aldi’s total foot traffic rose 7.1%, signaling sustained consumer enthusiasm for its pared-down, budget-friendly shopping experience.

Lidl finds new life among affluent suburban shoppers

Lidl, another German-based chain, has a smaller U.S. footprint—187 locations as of June 15—but it’s finding success with a shifting shopper base.

While its share of “single-and-starter” shoppers has declined (from 10.9% in 2019 to 8.7% in 2025), Lidl has made gains with suburban-style shoppers, increasing its share from 11.8% to 14.5%, and with the “power elite” demographic, which rose to 11.2% from 8.4%.

“Lidl has been adding new stores in recent months,” Placer.ai noted, “leaning into its thriving suburban segment, while also expanding into major cities.”

That dual strategy could help Lidl boost brand recognition and grow beyond its current strongholds, appealing to both wealthier households and urban newcomers.

Market share shifts signal big changes in grocery retail

The combined growth of Trader Joe’s, Aldi, and Lidl—each with different strengths and expansion tactics—signals increasing pressure on traditional supermarket chains. As these disruptors gain traction, larger players may need to re-evaluate pricing strategies, store formats, and customer engagement tactics to keep up.

With cost-conscious consumers and a shifting retail landscape, 2025 is shaping up to be a pivotal year in the grocery wars—and these three chains are leading the charge.

• 1.36 million homes were for sale in June, the most since November 2019.

• The market is balanced or in buyers' favor in 28 of the 50 largest US metros. 

• A record-high 26.6% of listings dropped prices in June; cuts are most common in the Sun Belt and Mountain West.

Since early in the COVID-19 pandemic, homebuyers have been waiting for this moment. Zillow’s latest market report suggests the U.S. housing market is showing signs of a long-awaited rebalancing, giving buyers more leverage.

For most of 2025, buyers have been playing hard to get. That’s resulted in a spike in the number of available homes for sale, causing more sellers to lower their prices.

This marks a significant turn after years of seller dominance, ushering in what Zillow calls a "neutral" market, where neither buyers nor sellers have the upper hand.

“The shift to a 'neutral' market is significant,” Kara Ng, Zillow’s senior economist, said in a statement. “But it shouldn't be mistaken for a universally cool or easy market for buyers. The affordability crisis remains a high barrier to entry, especially for first-time buyers.”

More homes, less competition

In June, active listings hit 1.36 million — the highest number since November 2019 — reflecting a 17.2% increase from a year ago. A slowdown in buyer activity has reduced competition and allowed homes to linger longer on the market. Median time to pending sale is now 19 days, up from 11 days in June 2023.

Still, affordability is keeping many potential buyers on the sidelines because mortgage rates are in the “normal” range historically speaking, but prices have hovered near record highs. Despite a slight dip in mortgage costs, home prices and borrowing rates remain stubbornly high. Inventory, though improving, is still 21% below June’s pre-pandemic averages. Zillow said it anticipates this shortfall will continue to shrink, potentially closing the gap by year’s end.

Cutting prices at record rates

Price cuts have become increasingly common, especially in overheated markets in the Sun Belt and Mountain West. Nationwide, 26.6% of listings saw price reductions in June — the highest June share since Zillow began tracking in 2018. In cities like Denver (38%), Raleigh (36%), and Dallas (36%), more than a third of sellers lowered their asking prices to attract attention.

Sellers hoping to move their homes in this new market dynamic are being advised to price competitively and differentiate their listings. With more options and slower sales, buyers are under less pressure and more willing to wait for the right deal.

• The Wall Street Journal says Amazon increased prices on over 1,200 low-cost essentials despite pledge to hold the line

• Walmart dropped prices on the same products by nearly 2%, diverging sharply from Amazon, the WSJ said

• Retailers navigate political pressure and supply shocks as tariff policies continue to evolve

As the U.S. grapples with the economic fallout of sweeping new tariffs imposed earlier this year by President Trump, a Wall Street Journal analysis found that Amazon has quietly raised prices on many of its most affordable household products — despite previously stating it would avoid such increases.

Amazon denied the Journal's claims. “This story is false and misleading. We have not seen the average prices of products offered in our store change up or down appreciably outside of typical fluctuations across millions of items on Amazon," an Amazon spokesperson said. 

The investigation, which examined nearly 2,500 items using pricing data from e-commerce tracker Traject Data, found that Amazon increased prices on more than 1,200 of its lowest-cost items — ranging from deodorant to protein shakes and pet supplies — while competitor Walmart lowered prices on the same items by almost 2%.

These moves come as retailers respond to an increasingly volatile business environment shaped by rising import costs, political pressure, and rapidly shifting consumer demand. Analysts say the changes signal differing strategies as the nation’s largest retailers position themselves amid the tariff storm.

Amazon contends that the study's sample size was not nearly large enough.

"This study is seriously flawed, cherry picking a mere 2,500 items out of the hundreds of millions we sell, and failing to accurately compare like-for-like offers in stock and available for sale across retailers," the Amazon spokesperson told ConsumerAffairs in an email.

"For the full set of 2,500 items investigated, we found the vast majority had no price change or a price decrease, and further we were still competitively priced compared to other retailers."

Did Amazon defy its April pledge?

In April, Amazon publicly vowed to “hold the line” on prices. But internally, the company struggled to absorb new costs. According to Corey Thomas, an Amazon vendor consultant, thin profit margins and high shipping costs on inexpensive items have made it harder for Amazon to keep prices low.

By contrast, Walmart has greater flexibility due to its network of brick-and-mortar stores, where in-store purchases of higher-margin products can subsidize losses on cheaper online items.

One example cited by the Journal comes from Dayglow, an Ohio-based manufacturer of stackable metal baskets. Amazon sold the baskets for $9.31 in February. By late April, the price had soared to $19.99 — even though Dayglow hadn’t increased its own prices to Amazon.

Company CEO Nick Morrisroe said his firm faced tariffs as high as 145% on goods in transit from China. While the final tariff rate was reduced to 30%, the uncertainty alone was enough to prompt him to begin negotiating with non-Chinese suppliers and consider raising prices.

Walmart slashes prices, gains competitive edge

The Journal said that while Amazon boosted prices on everyday essentials — items that account for one in three units sold on its platform — Walmart moved in the opposite direction. Its cuts helped it maintain a reputation for affordability just as inflation and tariff fears rattled consumers.

But an Amazon source who was not authorized to speak publicly noted that there are "hundreds of millions of items available in the Amazon store," so a price comparison of a small sampling of 2,500 products is not an accurate reflection of Amazon overall.

The Amazon source also quoted recent independent analysis from Profitero that named Amazon the lowest-priced U.S. retailer for eight years in a row, showing that Amazon’s online prices were an average of 14% less expensive than all major U.S. retailers in 2024, including up to 6% less on everyday essentials. Learn more here.

Target also said it is prioritizing internal cost controls over raising prices. Across the industry, many retailers are reportedly using coded language in investor communications to avoid political scrutiny. Earlier this year, Amazon scrapped a plan to display tariff-related price increases on its bargain site, Haul, after criticism from the White House, which labeled the idea a “hostile and political act.”

President Trump himself took a hard line, warning businesses to “EAT THE TARIFFS” in May — shortly after Walmart publicly said prices would rise in response to import taxes.

Prices still volatile as retailers await clarity

Price movements have fluctuated for various reasons, including seasonal sales, inventory changes, and inflationary pressures. Amazon did cut prices on higher-end items, particularly around its Prime Day event from July 8 to July 11, though those prices rebounded after the promotion ended.

The broader impact of tariffs remains somewhat muted. According to Harvard Business School researcher Alberto Cavallo, prices on imported goods have risen about 2% since March. He notes that the ongoing lack of clarity is leading retailers to make pricing changes “more cautiously and incrementally.”

Amazon, for its part, defended its pricing strategy. In a statement, the company said, “We have not seen the average prices of products offered in our store change up or down appreciably. Our commitment to offering low prices—not relative percentage changes—is what delivers the most value to our customers.”

Still, with inflation accelerating and tariff deadlines looming — despite a recent extension to August 1 — the cost of household basics may continue to rise, especially for consumers who rely on e-commerce for essential goods.

• Consumers are battling two types of disorder—messiness and overabundance—but often mistake one for the other.

• The way we view our stuff—through either a “possessive” or “post-materialist” lens—shapes how (and if) we ever regain control.

• Decluttering efforts often fail because consumers misdiagnose the problem, applying the wrong strategy to the wrong kind of disorder.

“I’m not proud of this"

A new academic study dives deep into the personal turmoil and social contradictions faced by consumers trying—and often failing—to control clutter in their homes. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic research with relatively affluent individuals in Switzerland and Germany, the researchers argue that most homes are simultaneously fighting not one, but two material disorders: untidiness (disorder of placement) and clutteredness (disorder of quantity).

Yet consumers, social media influencers, and even decluttering experts routinely collapse the two, leaving people stuck in a frustrating cycle of tidying up without ever solving the real problem.

“Material disorder is easy to see but hard to fix,” the authors note. “That’s because we focus on the wrong kind of mess.”

The study appears in the August 2025 Journal of Consumer Research, published by Oxford University. 

Two lenses, two problems

To explain why clutter persists, the researchers introduce two powerful conceptual frameworks:

• The Possessive Materialist Lens views possessions as extensions of the self. Disorder, in this view, is about misplaced objects—solved through tidying, categorizing, and finding a “right place” for everything. Think: color-coded bookshelves, storage bins, and home organization hacks.

• The Post-Materialist Lens sees clutter as an overabundance that oppresses rather than empowers. Here, disorder isn’t about where stuff is—it’s about how much of it there is. The solution isn’t tidying, but purging.

Both lenses are valid, the study finds—but dangerously incomplete when applied in isolation. A home may be perfectly tidy but feel suffocatingly full. Or it may be sparse in quantity but visually chaotic.

“Clutter returns” 

The findings explain why millions of consumers turn to social media, self-help books, and Netflix shows like Tidying Up with Marie Kondo, yet still feel defeated. Misdiagnosis is the core issue: we try to declutter when we should be tidying, or tidy when we should be letting go.

Popular advice also stacks the odds against consumers. For instance, Kondo’s brand promises transformation through “tidying,” even though her process often requires significant disposal. The confusion creates what the authors call a “conceptual mess”—one that mirrors the physical mess in many homes.

Understanding disorder

The study’s key contribution is a redefinition of clutter as plural—not one disorder, but several, often overlapping. By distinguishing between disorder-as-untidiness and disorder-as-clutteredness, consumers can better target their efforts and win back control of their spaces.

“What we’ve done in the past isn’t working,” one frustrated Facebook user says. This study suggests they’re right—not because they lack discipline, but because the problem has been misframed.

To truly clear the clutter, consumers must ask not just “Where does this go?” but “Should this even be here?” Only by viewing disorder through both lenses can we stop our possessions from possessing us.

• Simpler retirement account statements increased savings when firms had strong returns

• But for poorly performing firms, simplification actually reduced contributions

• Findings challenge assumptions of policy experts and have major implications for global savings policy

A new academic study reveals that simplifying retirement account statements can encourage people to save more—but only if they’re invested with a well-performing firm. When consumers saw clearer, easier-to-read statements from firms with poor returns, they actually contributed less.

The research, based on two large-scale field experiments involving more than 127,000 customers in Mexico, challenges the widely held belief that simpler communication always leads to better financial outcomes.

While simplification made key information easier to understand and remember, it also amplified consumers’ focus on whether their retirement provider was performing well—leading many to reduce contributions if the firm was ranked low.

The study was recently publishes in the Journal of Consumer Research.

A surprising backfire for low-ranked firms

The study, conducted in partnership with two Mexican retirement firms, found that simplified statements led to increased voluntary savings among customers of the higher-ranked firm, but reduced savings among customers of the lower-ranked one.

This result caught both researchers and policy experts off guard. In surveys before the experiment, none of the 74 policymakers and marketing experts polled predicted that simplification could lead to a negative effect. Over 70% assumed that simpler statements would boost savings across the board.

Even a follow-up survey of 200 everyday Mexican citizens showed most people believed simplified forms would improve savings—regardless of firm performance.

Why simplification had mixed results

The researchers suggest the key lies in a concept called processing fluency—how easily people can absorb information. When people better understand their account statements, they’re more likely to act on what they learn.

That can be good news if the information is positive—such as a high-performing fund—but bad news if it highlights poor returns. In those cases, the study suggests, simplification may unintentionally discourage people from saving altogether.

Laboratory experiments confirmed that people who saw simplified statements remembered their firm’s rank more accurately—and that this clarity amplified their response, either positively or negatively.

A path forward: Help people switch

To counter the negative effects for customers in poorly performing funds, the researchers tested a new approach: simplifying the process for switching to a better provider. When customers received clearer instructions on how to switch firms, those with low-ranked providers were significantly more likely to move their savings.

This finding points to an important policy opportunity. By not only simplifying statements but also making switching options more transparent and accessible, policymakers could help boost retirement savings even for those in underperforming funds.

Implications for global retirement policy

With millions worldwide facing retirement savings gaps, governments and financial institutions have increasingly embraced "nudge" strategies to encourage better financial behavior. Simplifying forms has become the most common intervention used in nearly 36% of policy experiments worldwide, according to a recent meta-analysis.

But this new research suggests that simplification alone isn’t a silver bullet. Instead, it must be paired with strategies that help people act on the information they understand—especially when that information reveals problems with their current financial provider.

The study adds to a growing body of behavioral economics research that urges policymakers to look beyond good intentions and understand how real people react to clearer information.

As the researchers conclude, “Improving the ease of processing information can change behavior—but whether that change is helpful or harmful depends on the message the information is sending."

• Near-miss in North Dakota skies

• Delta regional jet makes evasive maneuver

• Military B-52 involved in close encounter

A Delta Airlines regional jet, operated by SkyWest Airlines, landed safely in Minot, N.D. after the pilot told passengers he was forced to take “aggressive action” to avoid colliding with a U.S. Air Force B-52 bomber. The incident occurred Friday night, according to Aviation Source News.

Flight DL3788, an Embraer E175 Delta Connection operated by SkyWest Airlines, was en route to Minot from Minneapolis-Saint Paul. The plane was on final approach when the crew spotted the military aircraft. Passengers on board reported feeling the aircraft abruptly pitch downward before leveling off again within minutes.

“In front of you on the right-hand side, you probably saw the airplane sort of coming at us. Nobody told us about it, and so we continued,” the pilot reportedly said over the PA system, according to one passenger’s post on social media.

Applause from the cabin

The pilot reportedly apologized to the passengers for the sudden turn, but after he explained the reason he received applause from the cabin.

In a statement to the New York Post, a SkyWest spokesperson said: “SkyWest flight 3788, operating as Delta Connection from Minneapolis, Minnesota to Minot, North Dakota on July 18, landed safely in Minot after being cleared for approach by the tower but performed a go-around when another aircraft became visible in their flight path. We are investigating the incident.”

It was the second incident involving a Delta regional jet and a military aircraft this year. In late January a Delta regional jet landing at Washington Reagan National Airport collided with an Army Blackhawk helicopter, killing everyone on board both aircraft.

Friday turned out to be an eventful day for Delta. Delta Airlines Flight 446 reported an engine fire shortly after taking off from Los Angeles International Airport and was forced to return. The aircraft landed safely.