Every fall, I anticipate the winter holidays with almost childlike joy. I look forward to familiar traditions with friends and family, eggnog in my coffee, and the sense that everyone is feeling a little lighter and more connected.
At the same time, I feel anxious and annoyed by the manufactured sense of urgency around gift giving: the endless searching and second-guessing shaped by advertisers, retailers, and cultural expectations.
Dont get me wrong, I mostly love givingand, yes, receivinggifts during the holidays. But as a researcher who studies consumer psychology, I see how those same forces, amplified by constant buying opportunities and frictionless online payments, make us especially vulnerable and often unwise this time of year.
Buying behavior, including gift giving, doesnt just reflect needs and wants but also our values. Frequently, the values we talk about are more akin to aspirational ideals. Our actual values are revealed in the seemingly inconsequential choices we make day after dayincluding shopping.
The cumulative effects of our spending behaviors carry enormous implications for society, the environment, and everyones well-beingfrom the purchaser and recipient to people working throughout the supply chain. This makes consumer behavior an especially important place to apply the emerging social science research on wisdom. While wisdom is defined in different ways, it can be understood as seeing decisions through a broader, values-informed perspective and acting in ways that promote well-being.
Over the past decade, consumer psychology researcher David Mick and I have studied what that means when it comes to consumption. Consumer wisdom? you may wonder. Isnt that an oxymoron?
But there are vast differences in how we consumeand as our research shows, this can lead to very different effects on individual well-being.
Defining consumer wisdom
Building on some of Davids earlier work, I began my own research on consumer wisdom in the summer of 2015, interviewing dozens of people across the U.S. whom others in their communities had identified as models of wisdom. Previous research guided me to settings where I could easily find people who represented different aspects of wisdom: practicality on farms in upstate New York; environmental stewardship in Portland, Oregon; and community values in Tidewater, Virginia.
I didnt use the term wisdom, though. It can be intimidating, and people often define it narrowly. Instead, I spoke with people whose peers described them as exemplary decision-makerspeople leading lives that considered both the present and the future, and who balanced their needs with others needs.
From those conversations, David and I developed a theory of consumer wisdom. With the help of a third coauthor, Kelly Haws, we validated this framework through national surveys with thousands of participants, creating the consumer wisdom scale.
The scale shows how consumer wisdom is not some lofty ideal but a set of practical habits. Some are about managing money. Some are about goals and personal philosophy, and others are about broader impact.
We have found that six dimensions capture the vast majority of what we would call consumer wisdom:
Responsibility: managing resources to support a rewarding yet realistic lifestyle.
Purpose: prioritizing spending that supports personal growth, health, and relationships.
Perspective: drawing on past experiences and anticipating future consequences.
Reasoning: seeking and applying reliable, relevant information; filtering out the noise of advertising and pop culture.
Flexibility: being open to alternatives such as borrowing, renting, or buying used.
Sustainability: spending in ways that support the buyers social or environmental goals and values.
These are not abstract traits. They are everyday ways of aligning your spending with your goals, resources, and values.
Importantly, people with higher scores on the scale report greater life satisfaction, as well as better health, financial security, and sense of meaning in life. These results hold even after accounting for known determinants of well-being, such as job satisfaction and supportive relationships. In other words, consumer wisdom makes a distinctive and underappreciated contribution to well-being.
Putting it into practice
These six dimensions offer a different lens on holiday normsone that can reframe how to think about gifts.
Interestingly, the English word gift traces back to the Old Norse rune gyfu, which means generosity. Its a reminder that true giving is not about checking boxes on referral, revenue-generating gift guides or yielding to slick promotions or fads. Generosity is about focusing on another persons well-being and our relationship with them.
From the perspective of consumer wisdom, that means asking what will genuinely contribute to the recipients life. One of the most important dimensions of consumer wisdom is purpose: the idea that thoughtful spending can nurture personal growth, health, enjoyment, and a sense of connection. Out with trendy gadgets, fast fashion, and clutter-creating décor or knickknacksthings that feel exciting in the moment but are quickly forgotten. In with quality headphones, a shared cooking class, a board game, and a workshop or tools to support a hobbygifts that can spark growth, joy and deeper connection.
In my ongoing research, people have described wise gifts as those that define value from the recipients perspectivegifts that stay meaningful and useful over time. The wisest gifts, respondents say, also affirm the recipients identity, showing that the giver truly understands and values them.
Wiser consumption is learnable, measurable, and consequential. By choosing gifts that reflect purpose and the original spirit of gyfutrue generositywe can make the holidays less stressful. More importantly, we can make them more meaningful: strengthening relationships in ways that bring joy long after.
Michael Luchs is a JS Mack professor of business at William & Mary.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Underperformance usually shows up in the guise of missed deadlines, low-quality work, or a bad attitude. This gets spotted sometimes, but not always, by a leader who then has to make a choice: when and how to tackle the underperformance.
However, the problem can be exacerbated by acting too quickly: there is often a fierce desire within leaders to jump to action. They want to stop the badness, stop the ripples, and solve the situation as quickly as possible. But often, this means that they make assumptions about what is causing the underperformance and how to solve it without taking a little time to explore the real reasons behind the poor performance.
The problem can also be exacerbated by acting too slowly: underperformance has a nasty habit of rippling out. Whether it creates a sense among colleagues that this low standard is acceptable, or whether it means that team members get annoyed that this individual is getting away with it (and therefore reduce their own efforts to create a sense of parity), it all ends in the same place: more underperformance and a potential impact on the workplace culture.
I developed SOLVE, a leadership problem-solving model, to deal with exactly these sorts of problems: ones that need solving but arent as easy as jumping straight to action. Causes need establishing, options need considering, context needs to be taken into account. In the case of underperformance, the five stages of the SOLVE model would work like this:
S State the ProblemTry to express, in 12 sentences, what the problem appears to be and the impact its having. Try to be precise about the behaviour causing concern: “Theyre regularly late with deliverables and hesitant to give their opinion in meetings, which reduces their impact and makes our team look unprepared.”
O Open the BoxHere, leaders dig into the problem more deeply, trying to work out why this situation is occurring. I encourage them to do a bit of research, and in this case, research should absolutely include talking to the team member in question to find out whats going on.
In the case of underperformance, I would investigate the following areas:
Has their workload increased recently, either because youve given them more tasks, or someone else has without your awareness?
Are they being asked to do work at a higher level than before? You might not perceive this in the same way they do, so its worth asking them the question.
Has anything changed in their personal life? In some country and company cultures, its not appropriate to ask this outright, but there is no harm in a catch-up asking them how things are going in general and seeing if they bring anything up.
Are they still finding their work interesting? Has anything changed that may have put their values out of line with the companys or vice versa?
Has the level of clarity over whats expected of them changed? If the companys strategy has changed, youre a new manager, or they are working across two projects, they may simply be confused as to what to prioritize and why.
L Lay Out Your SolutionBased on what youve discovered, you can now create a workable response. It might be offering clearer priorities, adjusting scope, or helping them to see the value of their work again. Leaders should think hard about what fits the context and the individual. With these very messy leadership problems, there is no such thing as a universal solutionthink about how your organizations size, industry, and status affect which solutions would work. If its a team issue, what impact does your function, size, and sub-culture have? And with regard to the individual involved, how does their background, personality, and experience affect your approach?
V Venture ForthHere, leaders start to put their actions into practice while looking out for problems along the way, ready to pivot. It may be that, as the underperformer starts to roll out actions to improve their performance, more factors reveal themselves as being important to take into account. For example, a leader I worked with recently thought that the solution to team disengagement was to increase rewards. However, the very mention of rewards led one team member to start to gripe about how this company thinks you can pay off anyone. It emerged that, even though the team member hadnt previously said it, their disengagement was as a result of feeling bored with the work, rather than feeling unrewarded. The leader focused instead on providing work that team member perceived as more interesting, and their engagement rapidly improved.
E Elevate Your LearningThis is about using the new skills and knowledge youve gleaned to generate further positive impacts. For example, if youve learned more about how to help team members manage their workload, can you share this with other leaders who have overstretched teams?
I believe, and have seen through my work, that the SOLVE model can make a meaningful difference in handling underperformance (as well as plenty of other types of leadership problems).
Leaders I work with on staff underperformance benefit from the encouragement that they should slow down, lay the situation out clearly, and then pick a solution that properly fits their context. They also appreciate being shown, through the Elevate stage, how to make sure that the time theyve taken solving this problem hasnt gone to waste. They have developed skills and approaches that will continue to help them and others in the future.
The SOLVE framework allowed one leader I recently worked with to break down precisely why their sub-teams were underperforming, looking at the issue on an individual basis, and come up with targeted solutions. Importantly, they were also able to use their skills to help other leadership teams across the firm, multiplying the impact that their careful handling of underperformance had for their firm.
I recommend, if you are keen to deal with an underperformance issue, to work through the five stages and see the positive impact that they can have on your team and, therefore, your leadership.
As soon as ChatGPT launched, Odyssey Gohain saw the writing on the wall.
The now 27-year-old was working as a marketer in Amsterdam at the time, looking to move into a more senior role when the powerful AI tool started replacing individual tasks, then team membersincluding an older colleague whose career Gohain idolized.
I thought maybe in three, four years, I’ll be in her place. And then she got laid off, says Gohain, who was let go soon after herself.
After moving back home with her parents in 2023, Gohain started an independent marketing business as a solopreneur. Two years later, she is still earning less than at her previous role, but says the transition has offered other benefits.
After that [career] roadblock, I was really struggling to figure out my next step. It felt like I was staring at a blank wall, she says. Now there is more stability. Even though there is not a lot of money in it, there is a confidence that I will get there. Things felt harder before.
Ironically, the very technology that threatened Gohains career in the traditional workforce is proving to be a game changer in her new independent venture of assisting startups with their organic marketing strategy.
I actually made a few sales through ChatGPT, she says, explaining that the AI platform has come to replace online search. People are searching for my niche on ChatGPT, and I have been seeing a lot of traffic come from it.
As young people struggle to kick-start or grow their careers in a stagnant job market, and as the barriers to entry for entrepreneurship continue to plummet, thanks to technology (ironically, the same tech thats turning the workforce on its head), many are taking the leap into solopreneurship.
A New Generation With a New Definition of Career Success
In a recent survey of 2,300 Americans ages 18 to 34 that was conducted by Citizens, a Rhode Island-based financial institution, only a quarter expressed interest in climbing the corporate ladder.
Instead, 67% respondents said they have pursued an entrepreneurial ventureof which more than a third identified as solopreneurs rather than employers or gig workers.
There’s a complete redefinition of careers happening among young people, says Mark Valentino, head of business banking at Citizens. They’re redefining what career success looks like, what life success looks like. And they’re stating it in a manner that is more about adventure, flexibility, sustainability, and a quality of life that is goodbut that is not necessarily so tied to monetary success.
Valentino explains that values like flexibility, meaning, and work-life balance are often more attainable as an independent business owner than as a traditional employee, especially in the current job market.
The barriers to starting a business today are also the lowest they’ve ever been, he says, suggesting one can now register a business and develop a business plan in a matter of minutes online. There’s a little bit of a steer away from traditional corporate America in this generation as well, and theres been more economic barriers in their way, like the cost of college.
Economic necessity drives solopreneurship
That lack of financial independence is, ironically, also making it easier to start a business, Valentino says, as many are living at home for longer.
The fact that they’re staying in the nest a little bit longer than previous generations gives them a little bit of freedom to take more risks, he says. If you are somebody who does have a little bit of support, or can live at home a little bit longer, you can take a little bit of a chance on becoming a solopreneur.
According to a recent study conducted by payroll and HR solutions provider Gusto, Gen Z solopreneurs earn, on average, less than $10,000 during their first year, which is 73% less than those who are traditionally employed.
By year five, however, average earnings exceed $60,000, or 28% more than their corporate counterparts.
After five years, theyre able to really start taking advantage of the financial freedom that solopreneurship offers, says Gusto economist Nich Tremper. They’re able to take their skills to market in a way that allows them to really set their own price.
That, he says, is an appealing prospect for a generation that is experiencing significant wage stagnation.
People who are just starting out in their careers are dependent on early wage growth and gains to set the course for their overall earning potential later in life, and they do that by moving around to different jobs or getting promotions at their current job, Tremper explains. In a frozen labor market, solopreneurship is an opportunity for people to get that next boost in their income.
Its about more than money
Like the Citizens survey, however, Gustos data also suggests that this generation is motivated by more than money.
According to the survey, 88% of Gen Z solopreneurs were motivated by the opportunity to set their own schedule, compared with 70% among all solopreneurs.
Furthermore, 68% wanted to be their own boss, 41% reported being unsatisfied with their current or former job, and 40% said they took the leap to have a positive impact on their community.
They really want to define what work means for them, Tremper says. The labor market is pretty frozen, so theyre going out and starting their own thing.
The public disclosure of more than 20,000 pages of newly released documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has been the subject of much online discourse this week. While the emails themselves are full of damning revelations, particularly regarding Epsteins relationship with President Donald Trump, the internets attention has been caught on another detail.
BREAKING: Newly released emails reveal Jeffrey Epstein struggled to compose sentences in English, journalist Tom Elliott posted on X. Why can none of these very rich and powerful men type or spell, journalist Jill Filipovic asked.
In case you havent seen it, one such email reads: i want you to realize that that dog that hasnt barked is trump.. [REDACTED] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75 % there. Thats verbatim.
While undoubtedly there are more important things to focus on than Epsteins grasp of the English language, it is, for many, a point of interest.
I know that once you get to a certain status, you dont bother with email signatures and salutations, but taking out proper nouns and punctuation is a psychotic power play, one X user wrote.
Gagging here trying to read Epstein emails with these unwarranted spaces before every comma and no caps to speak of, another added. Such naked contempt for the reader. Messed up guy no doubt.
Epstein isnt the only one who seemingly struggled with email writing. Nearly one in five Americans now turn to AI to help write their emails, making it the most common way people offload to AI in their daily life. ResumeTemplates.coms August 2025 survey found 25% of ChatGPT users can no longer pen emails without it.
I never understood why white-collar professionals would need AI to write their emails as if they were that illiterate, another X user wrote. but after reading Jeffrey Epstein write hay Grlmane I thk mebbe wire $30K [REDACTED] girl Mrlago I kinda get it.
Another week, another questionable TikTok trend. The latest internet sensation has social media users asking someone to film them dancing. Instead, the dancer clicks the flip-camera button mid-dance filming the filmer instead of themselves. And while the trend is meant to be funny (and, of course, get clicks), not everyone is laughing.
The prank, called the flip-camera trend, has resulted in hundreds of videos showing awkward, close-up faces of people who believe they are filming friends (or even strangers) circulating on the platform. However, some of the videos are awkward to view, and are resulting in some major embarrassment. That’s especially true when the videos get major traffic.
While some of the videos appear to be all in good fun, some of them seem downright hurtful. Some videos show well-meaning strangers simply trying to help out, only to have their faces posted to the internet to be mocked by hundreds, thousands, or more. Some users have posted ultra-emotional responses showcasing the true embarrassment that may come with having your face shared across the internet without consent.
Recently, TikTok user its.jusninii shared a video showing her in tears over the prank. “Me after seeing the flip camera trend and realizing how cruel you little kids are,” she wrote. The video clearly struck a chord, as it has over 2 million likes at present. But the user is not the only one who is airing their feelings about the prank. Hundreds of response videos have been trending where users, instead of making their own flip-camera videos, are calling out the users who are taking part.
Many of the videos have the same message: they say the prank isn’t all in good fun. It’s actually bullying.
In one recent video, TikTok user Nathalie Reynolds acts like she’s about to flip the camera on her filmer. Instead, she takes the opportunity to bash the prank, yelling into her phone “You thought I was about to flip the camera? This is not a trend. This is bullying!”
And on Instagram, user @coquettesvanilla wrote that the entire trend is built around embarrassing people, and from that lens, it’s not okay. “We shouldnt be building a whole trend around tearing someone down,” the user wrote. “Bullying isnt always loud or obvious, sometimes it hides behind its just for fun. But if someone gets hurt, then it wasnt fun to begin with.”
Bullying can take many forms, and these days, internet bullying is a huge concern, as kids spend more and more time online. But, according to StopBullying.com, it’s also worrisome because, in some cases, like if videos arent removed when someone asks, it can be permanent. “Most information communicated electronically is permanent and public, if not reported and removed,” the website explains.
While many who’ve been pranked might not mind having their faces make the rounds on the internet, it seems clear that many feel downright violated. And when it comes to the question of bullying, the TikTok victims say it fits the bill.
The 2025 Leonid meteor shower is forecast to peak this weekend, lighting up the night sky with up to 15 meteors an hour whizzing by at 44 miles per second, according to Live Science.
The Leonids peak is expected to be visible in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere this Sunday, November 16 into early Monday, November 17, according to the Planetary Society.
Expect prime meteor shower viewing, since the moon is expected to only be 9% full, giving viewers mostly dark skies.
Here’s what to know about seeing the dazzling display.
What is a meteor shower?
Meteor showers, or “shooting stars,” occur as Earth passes through the trail of dusty debris left by a comet, per NASA.
Meteor showers are usually named after the constellation or star near where the meteors first appear.
The Leonids are aptly named after the Leo constellation, and come from debris from the Tempel-Tuttle comet.
When is the best time to see the Leonid meteor shower?
Typically, the best time to see a meteor shower is between midnight and before dawn. For the best viewing times in your area, see timeanddate.com.
If you miss Sunday’s peak event, don’t worry. The Leonids will still be active the rest of the month, until November 30.
Leonid meteor storms are a special treat
About every 33 years, a Leonid meteor shower turns into a meteor storm, dazzling viewers with a treat1,000 meteors each hour, producing a dazzling light show.
The last Leonid meteor storm occurred in 2002, with the next one forecast for 2031, the Planetary Society reported.
The Leonids are best known for producing meteor storms in 1833, 1866, 1966, 1999, 2001, and 2002, according to the American Meteor Society.
In a new report, AI company Anthropic detailed a highly sophisticated espionage campaign that deployed its artificial intelligence tools to launch automated cyberattacks around the globe.
The attackers aimed high, targeting government agencies, Big Tech companies, banks, and chemical companies, and succeeded in a small number of cases, according to Anthropic. The company says that its research links the hacking operation to the Chinese government.
The company claims that the findings are a watershed moment for the industry, marking the first instance of a cyber espionage scheme carried out by AI. We believe this is the first documented case of a large-scale cyberattack executed without substantial human intervention, Anthropic wrote in a blog post. Fast Company has reached out to Chinas embassy in D.C. for comment about the report.
Anthropic says that it first detected the suspicious use of its products in mid-September and conducted an investigation to uncover the scope of the operation. The attacks werent fully autonomoushumans were involved to set them in motionbut they manipulated Anthropics Claude Code tool, a version of the AI assistant designed for developers, to execute complex pieces of the campaign.
Tricking Claude into doing crime
To get around Claudes built-in safety guardrails, the hackers worked to jailbreak the AI model, basically tricking it into doing smaller, benign-seeming tasks without the broader context of their application. The attackers also told the AI tool that they were working in a defensive capacity for a legitimate cyber firm to persuade the model to let down its defenses.
After bending Claude to their will, the attackers set the AI assistant to work analyzing its targets, identifying high-value databases and writing code to exploit weaknesses it found in their targets systems and infrastructure.
The framework was able to use Claude to harvest credentials (usernames and passwords) that allowed it further access and then to extract a large amount of private data, which it categorized according to its intelligence value, Anthropic wrote. The highest-privilege accounts were identified, backdoors were created, and data were exfiltrated with minimal human supervision.
In the last phase, the attackers directed Claude to document their actions, producing files including stolen credentials and the systems that were analyzed, which they could build on in future attacks. The company estimates that at least 80% of the operation was carried out autonomously, without a human directing it.
Anthropic noted in its report that much like it does with less malicious tasks, the AI generated errors during the cyberattack, making false claims about harvesting secret info and even hallucinating some of the logins it produced. Even with some errors, an agentic AI thats right most of the time can point itself at a lot of targets, quickly create and execute exploits, and do a lot of damage in the process.
AI on the attack
The new report from Anthropic isnt the first time that an AI company has discovered its tools being misused in elaborate hacking schemes. Its not even a first for Anthropic.
In August, the company detailed a handful of cybercrime schemes using its Claude AI tools, including new developments in a long-running employment scam to get North Korean operatives hired into remote positions at American tech companies.
In another recent cybercrime incident, a now-banned user turned to Anthropics Claude assistant to create and sell ransomware packages online to other cybercriminals for up to $1,200 each.
The growth of AI-enhanced fraud and cybercrime is particularly concerning to us, and we plan to prioritize further research in this area, Anthropic said in the report.
The new attack is noteworthy both for its links to China and for its use of agentic AI AI that can execute complex tasks on its own once set in motion. The ability to work from start to finish with less oversight means these tools work more like humans do, pursuing a goal and completing smaller steps to get there in the process. The appeal of an autonomous system that can pull off detailed analysis and even write code at scale has obvious appeal in the world of cybercrime.
A fundamental change has occurred in cybersecurity, Anthropic wrote in its report. …The techniques described above will doubtless be used by many more attackerswhich makes industry threat sharing, improved detection methods, and stronger safety controls all the more critical.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating a multistate outbreak of Salmonella infections linked to powdered dietary supplements. According to the latest update from the agency, the outbreak has sickened almost a dozen people, with three hospitalized.
The outbreak has also sparked multiple product recalls. Here’s what to know:
What’s happened?
On Wednesday, November 12, Brooklyn-based Food to Live voluntarily recalled its “Organic Moringa Leaf Powder” and “Organic Supergreens Powder Mix” products due to a risk of Salmonella contamination.
These products were distributed through retail and wholesale channels nationwide.
The FDA published a recall notice on Thursday, November 13.
Both recalled products contain moringa leaf powder supplied by Vallon Farmdirect PVT LTD of Jodhpur, India. The ingredient, which is sold in multiple dietary supplements, is linked to the Salmonella outbreak.
Earlier in October and November, products containing the same ingredient were also recalled. Those products were branded as Members Mark and Africa Imports.
To date, 11 illnesses across seven states have been reported in connection with products containing moringa leaf powder from the same lot.
Which products are impacted by the recalls?
The Food to Live product recall was initiated after the FDA notified the company that a specific supplier lot of organic moringa powder tested positive for Salmonella.
The following products are included in the most recent recall:
Organic Moringa Leaf Powder: Sold in 8-ounce, 1-pound, 2-pound, 4-pound, 8-pound, 16-pound, and 44-pound bags.
Organic Supergreens Powder Mix: Sold in 8-ounce, 1-pound, 1.5-pound, 3-pound, 6-pound, and 12-pound bags.
The recalled products were sold directly on the Food To Live website and were shipped to customers nationwide.
The products were also sold on third-party e-commerce platforms, including:
Amazon.com
Walmart.com
Target
Etsy
eBay
Bulk quantities from the affected lot were sold to food manufacturers and other businesses.
Other products containing moringa powder were recalled earlier. They were sold at various retailers, both in-store and online, and have been likewise linked to the outbreak.
The following products were recalled earlier:
Africa Imports Organic Moringa Leaf Powder: Sold in a 1-kilogram box on the Africa Imports website after June 5, 2025.
Members Mark Super Greens dietary supplement powder: All packages, regardless of lot codes or best buy/use by dates. The product was sold at Sams Club stores nationwide, in-store and online.
All recalled products were manufactured using a single lot of recalled organic moringa leaf powder supplied by Vallon Farmdirect, a food producer based in Jodhpur, India.
What if I have one of these recalled products?
Consumers who have purchased any of the above recalled products should dispose of them or return them to the place of purchase.
Distributors and retailers that have received recalled moringa leaf powder manufactured by Vallon Farmdirect should not use, sell, or distribute any products or ingredients containing it, the FDA says.
Where has the outbreak spread?
The FDA is currently investigating this Salmonella outbreak. The FDAs Moringa Leaf Powder Salmonella outbreak investigation page was last updated on November 13, 2025. A list of recalled products, product images, and other details about the investigation is available.
The FDA has reported 11 illnesses, with three people hospitalized.
Illnesses have been reported in the following states:
Florida
Kansas
Michigan
New York
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
What symptoms should I look out for?
Salmonella infection is a bacterial disease that affects the gastrointestinal tract. Its commonly spread through contaminated food or water.
According to the Mayo Clinic, most people develop diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps within 8 to 72 hours after exposure.
Most healthy people recover within a few days to one week without needing specific treatment. Some people have no symptoms at all.
If you think you have developed symptoms of Salmonella, contact a healthcare provider.
Lawyers representing OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, branches of the Sackler family that own it, cities, states, counties, Native American tribes, people with addiction and others across the U.S. are expected to deliver a nearly unanimous message for a bankruptcy court judge Friday: Approve a plan to settle thousands of opioid-related lawsuits against the company.If U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane abides, it will close a long chapter and maybe the entire book on a legal odyssey over efforts to hold the company to account for its role in an opioid crisis connected to 900,000 deaths in the U.S. since 1999, including deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl.Closing arguments were expected Friday in the third day of a hearing over a bankruptcy plan for the company, which filed for protection six years ago as it faced lawsuits with claims that grew to trillions of dollars.
The opposition is much quieter this time around
The saga has been emotional and full of contentious arguments between the many groups that took Purdue to court, often exposing a possible mismatch between the quest for justice and the practical role of bankruptcy court.The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a previous deal because it said it was improper for Sackler family members to receive immunity from lawsuits over opioids. In the new arrangement, entities who don’t opt into the settlement can sue them. Family members are collectively worth billions, but much of their assets are held in trusts in offshore accounts that would be hard to access through lawsuits.This time, the government groups involved have reached an even fuller consensus and there’s been mostly subdued opposition from individuals. Out of more than 54,000 personal injury victims who voted on whether the plan should be accepted. just 218 said no. A larger number of people who are part of that group didn’t vote.A handful of objectors spoke Thursday at the hearing, sometimes interrupting the judge. Some said that only the victims, not the states and other government entities, should receive the funds in the settlement. Others wanted the judge to find the members of the Sackler family criminally liable something Lane said is beyond the scope of the bankruptcy court, but that the settlement doesn’t bar prosecutors from pursuing.A Florida woman whose husband struggled with addiction after being given OxyContin following an accident told the court that the deal isn’t enough.“The natural laws of karma suggest the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma should pay for what they have done,” Pamela Bartz Halaschak said via video.
Deal would be among the biggest opioid settlements
A flood of lawsuits filed by government entities against Purdue and other drugmakers, drug wholesalers and pharmacy chains began about a decade ago.Most of the major ones have already settled for a total of about $50 billion, with most of the money going to fight the opioid crisis.The Purdue deal would rank among the largest of them. Members of the Sackler family would be required to pay up to $7 billion and give up ownership of the company. None have been on its board or received payments since 2018. Unlike a similar hearing four years ago, none were called to testify in this week’s hearing.The company would get a name change and new overseers who would dedicate future profits to battling the opioid crisis.There are also some non-financial provisions. Certain members of the Sackler family would be required to give up involvement in companies that sell opioids in other countries.Family members would also be barred from having their names added to institutions in exchange for charitable contributions. The name has already been removed from museums and universities.And company documents, including many that would normally be subject to lawyer-client privilege, are to be made public.
Some people hurt by Purdue’s opioids would receive some money
Unlike the other major opioid settlements, individuals harmed by Purdue’s products would be in line for some money as part of the settlement. About $850 million would be set aside for them, with more than $100 million of that amount carved out to help children born dealing with opioid withdrawal.About 139,000 people have active claims for the money. Many of them, however, have not shown proof that they were prescribed Purdue’s opioids and will receive nothing. Lawyers expect that those who had prescriptions for at least six months would receive about $16,000 each and those who had them more briefly would get around $8,000. Legal fees would reduce what people actually receive.One woman who had a family member suffer from opioid addiction told the court by video Thursday that the settlement doesn’t help people with substance use disorder.“Tell me how you guys can sleep at night knowing people are going to get so little money they can’t do anything with it,” asked Laureen Ferrante of Staten Island, New York.Most of the money is to go to state and local governments to be used in their efforts to mitigate damage of the opioid epidemic. Overdose death numbers have been dropping in the past few years, a decline experts believe is partly due to the impact of settlement dollars.
Geoff Mulvihill, Associated Press
President Donald Trump has worked to blame Democrats for the government shutdown, but a majority of Americans are unconvinced that it’s Democrats’ fault.
Trump’s administration has used the levers of the state to communicate partisan messages during the shutdown, which ended November 13. Ultimately, however, messaging through government channels like web design, out-of-office email replies, and public service announcements weren’t enough.
A 52% majority of Americans blame Trump or Republican lawmakers for the shutdown, according to a poll this week from Stack Data Strategy, a London market research firm.
That’s in line with an NBC News poll last month that found 52% blamed Trump and Republican lawmakers. And a YouGov poll released last week found more voters rate how Democrats in Congress handled the shutdown slightly better than Trump or Republicans in Congress. These are slim majorities, but they also show the limits of Trump’s influence over public opinion when it comes to the shutdown.
“Nobody wins in a shutdown,” Kenneth Cosgrove, a professor in the department of political science and legal studies at Suffolk University, tells Fast Company in an email. “The question is which party gets more of the blame? Traditionally it’s been Congress just because of the media and marketing advantages the executive branch has.”
But Trump himself hasn’t been fully engaged with ending the shutdown as his attention has been split between other efforts, including trips abroad to the Middle East and Asia, and overseeing his White House renovation project.
Trump “wasn’t very visible,” during the shutdown, Cosgrove says. “Plus, how many people look at government websites on a regular basis? Probably not that many.”
Most people aren’t browsing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website, where a bright red banner for the duration of the shutdown said “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government.” And because major airports refused to air a video filmed with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blaming Democrats for the shutdown, many travelers didn’t see it even as they spent extra hours at the airport due to delays and cancellations.
With any political messaging, there are two important questions: “How many people actually saw or heard the message, and what else were they seeing or hearing?” says Yana Krupnikov, a professor of communications and media at the University of Michigan.
“The information environment around us is so fullyes, we have messages on websites and out-of-office emails, but we also have news coverage from various sources, and we have people on social media. People also talk to each other,” Krupnikov says.
It’s also not as if Democrats come out of the shutdown unscathed. The deal to reopen the government came from a handful of Senate Democrats who crossed party lines. The resulting deal doesn’t include Affordable Care Act subsidies, meaning millions of Americans’ health insurance premiums are expected to go up. The deal to reopen the government is unpopular with many Democratic lawmakers, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Still, it turns out tearing down the East Wing draws more attention than a Department of Education OOO message ever could, and SNAP cuts and canceled flights resonate more deeply with the public than a White House website shutdown countdown clock blaming Democrats. In a busy news environment, it’s hard to break through, even for Trump.
