Current Events in July 2025

• Snyder cites challenges of raising a family and doing business in California as reasons for her move

• In-N-Out will open a new office in Franklin, Tennessee to support its southeastern expansion

• Company maintains firm stance against broader East Coast expansion, saying “Florida has begged us”

Lynsi Snyder, the billionaire president and owner of In-N-Out Burger, announced she is leaving California and relocating to Tennessee as the iconic burger brand opens a new eastern territory office to support its expansion into the southeastern U.S.

In a recent appearance on the Relatable podcast hosted by Allie Beth Stuckey, Snyder said the company is building a new office in Franklin, Tennessee — part of a larger move to establish a presence in the state where In-N-Out plans to open 35 restaurants.

“We’re building an office in Franklin, so I’m actually moving out there,” Snyder said. “There’s a lot of great things about California, but raising a family is not easy here. Doing business is not easy here.”

Snyder, the only grandchild of In-N-Out founders Harry and Esther Snyder, has long been the face of the famously family-run burger chain. Despite her move, she assured customers that California remains central to the company’s identity. “The bulk of our stores are still going to be here in California,” she said.

Florida has "begged" for new burger joints

In February, In-N-Out announced plans to close its Irvine, Calif., headquarters and consolidate its two West Coast offices into a single facility in Baldwin Park, the city where the first In-N-Out stand opened in 1948. Snyder told Stuckey the Irvine office is expected to close by 2030.

The new Tennessee office is part of a carefully planned expansion, Snyder said. In-N-Out famously adheres to a strict logistics model that requires a patty production facility within 300 miles of any location, a constraint that has limited its national footprint. Still, the company is growing steadily into the American South and Midwest.

Despite interest from states like Florida and others on the East Coast, Snyder said she remains committed to a more selective expansion strategy.

“Florida has begged us and we’re still saying no,” she said. “You know, the East Coast states, we’re still saying no. You know, we’re able to reach Tennessee from our Texas warehouse.”

Snyder’s relocation underscores a broader trend of California-based business leaders relocating to states like Texas and Tennessee, often citing more favorable conditions for business and family life. In-N-Out’s East Coast fans may have to keep waiting—but for Tennessee burger lovers, the wait is almost over.

• Lawsuit accuses Airbnb of violating California’s anti-gouging law by raising rental prices after January wildfires

• Company also allegedly misled users with false claims about verifying host identities and property locations

• City seeks restitution for renters, a permanent injunction, and civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation

Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto's office has filed a civil enforcement action against Airbnb, accusing the short-term rental giant of price gouging and deceptive business practices in the wake of the devastating January wildfires in the Pacific Palisades and Altadena.

The lawsuit alleges that Airbnb illegally inflated rental prices on at least 2,000 — and possibly over 3,000 — properties across Los Angeles after Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency on January 7, 2025. Under California’s Anti-Gouging Law (Penal Code section 396), it is unlawful to raise prices on essential goods and services, including rental housing, by more than 10% during a declared emergency.

Despite repeated extensions of the emergency order by Governor Newsom, Mayor Karen Bass, and the LA County Board of Supervisors — most recently on June 24 — the lawsuit contends that Airbnb continued to allow unlawful price hikes on its platform.

“It’s unconscionable that Airbnb permitted prices to be jacked up on thousands of rental properties at a time when so many people lost so much and needed a place to sleep,” said Feldstein Soto. “Although Airbnb subsequently took steps to curtail price gouging, evidence indicates that illegal gouging on the site continues and may be ongoing.”

Deceptive advertising also alleged

In addition to price gouging, the City Attorney’s lawsuit charges Airbnb with deceptive advertising, claiming the company misrepresents that it has “verified” both the identities of its hosts and the locations of listed properties. The complaint asserts that some so-called “verified hosts” use false or non-existent identities, and that some properties are inaccurately or fraudulently located.

The lawsuit, filed under California’s Unfair Competition Law, seeks several remedies, including:

• A permanent injunction barring Airbnb from charging unlawful rental rates during the state of emergency

• A ban on false or misleading claims about host verification and property locations

• Restitution to consumers who were charged inflated prices

• Civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation

The January wildfires created a surge in demand for short-term rentals as hundreds, possibly thousands, of displaced residents sought emergency housing. Airbnb, with an estimated 80% market share in Los Angeles and $11.1 billion in revenue in 2024, became a critical player in that market.

According to the lawsuit, Airbnb has long been aware that its verification processes are inadequate. Yet the company allegedly continues to advertise a false sense of security to prospective renters. The complaint notes that Airbnb tenants have reported falling victim to serious crimes including identity theft, robbery, sexual assault, voyeurism, and other security breaches linked to misleading host or location information.

City officials say the case sends a message to all businesses operating in disaster-affected regions: profiteering and deception will be met with swift legal action.

• Adults with a father who had Alzheimer’s showed greater tau buildup, a key marker of the disease.

• Women in the study had more widespread tau in their brains than men.

• Findings could help guide personalized prevention strategies before memory loss begins.

We’ve all heard how having a parent with Alzheimer’s could bump up our own risk of developing the disease — but what if it matters which parent? 

A recent study by the American Academy of Neurology reveals something surprising: it might actually be your dad’s history, not your mom’s, that correlates more strongly with a specific Alzheimer’s marker in the brain. While previous research often pointed to maternal inheritance, this study flips the narrative, focusing on how tau protein — not just memory decline — might have its own “family story.”

“We were surprised to see that people with a father with Alzheimer’s were more vulnerable to the spread of tau in the brain, as we had hypothesized that we would see more brain changes in people with affected mothers,” study author Sylvia Villeneuve, Ph.D. said in a news release. 

The study

Researchers tracked 243 cognitively healthy adults, all around 68 years old, who had at least one parent (or two siblings) with Alzheimer’s. Importantly, none of the participants had any thinking or memory issues when the study began. 

They underwent brain scans and memory testing, then were followed for almost seven years. Over that time, 71 people developed mild cognitive impairment — often seen as an early step toward Alzheimer’s. 

The team measured two key protein markers in the brain: beta-amyloid and tau. Tau buildup is especially linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

The results

The researchers discovered a paternal pattern throughout the study. 

Participants whose fathers had Alzheimer’s showed a greater spread of the tau protein in their brains. This was a surprising finding— especially since the team expected maternal influence to be stronger. 

Additionally, gender mattered too. Women in the study had a heavier tau buildup than men — and were more likely to show widespread tau protein spread.

It’s important to note that these findings are associations, not proof of direct cause. Additionally, the study participants were mostly white, so the findings may not apply equally across all races and ethnicities.

However, the researchers explained that these insights might help health care professionals design personalized interventions that protect those at higher risk before symptoms even surface.

“Better understanding these vulnerabilities could help us design personalized interventions to help protect against Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Villeneuve said.

• Earnest Operations LLC agrees to pay $2.5 million and reform lending practices.

• Massachusetts AG alleges AI-driven loan decisions harmed Black, Hispanic, and non-citizen applicants.

• Settlement mandates compliance measures and bans discriminatory algorithmic rules.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell has secured a $2.5 million settlement with Earnest Operations LLC, a Delaware-based student loan company, over allegations that its lending practices — driven by artificial intelligence (AI) — discriminated against marginalized borrowers and violated consumer protection and fair lending laws.

The settlement, filed in Suffolk County Superior Court as an assurance of discontinuance, addresses what the AG’s office described as systemic failures in Earnest’s underwriting process, including the use of AI models that allegedly produced disparate impacts on Black, Hispanic, and non-citizen borrowers.

AI models under scrutiny

According to the Attorney General’s investigation, Earnest used algorithmic models to make critical decisions about loan eligibility, pricing, and terms. However, the company failed to test for discriminatory outcomes and relied on data inputs and training methods that introduced bias — amplifying existing inequities in the lending process.

“Earnest’s failure to comply with consumer protection and fair lending laws, including through its AI models, unfairly put historically marginalized student borrowers at risk of being denied loans or receiving unfavorable loan terms,” AG Campbell said in a statement.

One key point of contention was the company’s use of the federal Cohort Default Rate (CDR) — a statistic reflecting average loan defaults at individual schools — as an input variable in its algorithms. The AG’s office said this disproportionately penalized applicants who attended minority-serving institutions, including historically Black colleges and universities.

Other alleged violations

In addition to algorithmic bias, the AG alleged other unfair practices:

• Use of a “Knockout Rule” to automatically deny loans based on immigration status.

• Arbitrary human assessments that led to inconsistent and opaque decisions.

• Inaccurate adverse action notices that misinformed applicants about credit decisions.

• A lack of internal compliance infrastructure to oversee fair lending risks.

Earnest denied all allegations and maintained that it did not violate state or federal law. The company said it agreed to the settlement solely to resolve the matter without prolonged litigation.

Reforms mandated in settlement

Under the terms of the agreement, Earnest must:

• Pay $2.5 million to the state of Massachusetts.

• Cease use of the Cohort Default Rate and immigration-based Knockout Rule in its loan decision models.

• Establish a robust corporate governance structure to monitor AI use.

• Develop written policies for responsible, legally compliant AI deployment.

• Regularly report compliance metrics to the AG’s office.

The settlement marks one of the first state-level enforcement actions targeting AI-related bias in financial services, setting a precedent for how regulators may respond to emerging technologies that impact consumer rights.

“This case sends a strong message,” Campbell said, “that technology, no matter how advanced, cannot be used as an excuse to sidestep civil rights and consumer protections.”

• A shingles vaccine was tied to a 20% drop in new dementia cases over seven years.

• The U.K. rollout created a natural experiment using birthdate eligibility.

• Reduction was especially strong in women, beyond the effects on shingles itself.

Researchers at Stanford Medicine dove into health records from older adults in Wales to explore the link between the shingles vaccine and the risk of dementia. 

They focused on those eligible for the live-attenuated shingles vaccine (Zostavax) based on an exact birthdate cutoff: anyone born on or after September 2, 1933 was eligible, while those born just before weren’t. 

Because both groups were nearly identical in age, health, and behavior — except for vaccine eligibility — this setup acted like a “natural randomized trial.” 

The result? Receiving the shingles vaccine was associated with a 20% lower chance of developing dementia over the next seven years, even after accounting for who actually got vaccinated.

“All these associational studies suffer from the basic problem that people who get vaccinated have different health behaviors than those who don’t,” researcher Pascal Geldsetzer, M.D., Ph.D., said in a news release. “In general, they’re seen as not being solid enough evidence to make any recommendations on.”

The study

For the study, the researchers used a regression discontinuity design — it allows them to compare people who are alike except for being eligible for vaccination. By looking at those born just before and after the September 1933 cutoff, they ensured both groups were very similar. One group had a 47.2% vaccination rate, while the other had only 0.01%.

Health records were tracked for seven years, noting new dementia diagnoses. To make sure the vaccine itself was the key difference, they checked that the groups didn’t differ in other diseases, doctor visits, or preventive health behavior. They even used alternative analyses to confirm the findings held up no matter how they looked at the data .

The study

The researchers found that there were fewer dementia cases overall. Being eligible for the vaccine cut new dementia diagnoses by 1.3 percentage points, or about 8.5% fewer cases.

In participants who actually got the shot, the reduction jumped to 3.5 points, a 20% drop in dementia risk.

“It was a really striking finding,” Dr. Geldsetzer said in the news release. “This huge protective signal was there, any which way you looked at the data.”

The team also learned that women had greater protective cognitive benefits than men. Though the vaccine lowered dementia risk for both sexes, the effect was significantly stronger in women.

What this means for you

The findings highlight a bonus to getting your shingles vaccine: the potential to protect your brain. Scientists are still trying to figure out why it works — whether it’s because the vaccine stops inflammation-causing shingles outbreaks, or if the vaccine primes the immune system in a way that wards off dementia.

While the study is robust, with careful methods that reduce bias, it’s still observational. That means it can show a strong connection, but not absolute proof. The researchers stress the need for randomized clinical trials before making firm claims.