Millions of Avast antivirus software customers are getting a refund. Here's why.
Millions of Americans who purchased antivirus software from Avast may be eligible for compensation due to a $16.5 million settlement by the company with the Federal Trade Commission, the regulatory agency announced on Monday.
Nearly 3.7 million consumers who bought the software from Avast between August 2014 and January 2020 can expect emails to arrive in their inboxes this week or next notifying them of their eligibility to apply for compensation, the FTC stated.
According to regulators, Avast for years collected information on customers through its antivirus software and browser extensions including data on:
religious beliefs
health concerns
political leanings
locations
financial status
Avast claimed its software would protect user privacy by blocking third-party tracking, but sold the their information without people's consent to more than 100 third-parties through a subsidiary called Jumpshot, the FTC alleged in 2024. Starting Monday, the agency will send email notices to nearly 3.7 million people who may qualify for a refund.
Eligible consumers can file a claim online at www.ftc.gov/Avast. If you get an email with a claim number, you can apply for a payment online at www.avastsettlement.com/file-a-claim.
Those who need help filing a claim can call the refund administrator at 1-866-290-0165. To be eligible, consumers must file a claim by June 5. Payments will depend on factors including how many people file a claim.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces $1,000 government-funded accounts for American babies
Donald Trump unveiled a federal program Monday providing $1,000 government-funded investment accounts for American babies, getting backing from top business leaders who said they plan to contribute billions more to an initiative tied to 'the big beautiful bill'. At a White House roundtable with over a dozen CEOs, including from Uber, Goldman Sachs and Dell Technologies, Trump relayed the details of 'Trump accounts' – tax-deferred investment accounts tracking stock market performance for children born between 2025 and 2029. 'For every US citizen born after December 31, 2024, before January 1, 2029, the federal government will make a one-time contribution of $1,000 into a tax-deferred account that will track the overall stock market,' Trump said. The accounts will be controlled by guardians and allow additional private contributions up to $5,000 annually. Trump called it 'a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation'. Related: Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is built on falsehoods about low-income families | Brigid Schulte and Haley Swenson CEOs from major companies including Michael Dell, Dara Khosrowshahi of Uber, David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, and Vladimir Tenev of Robinhood committed billions for employees' children's accounts. Trump praised the executives as 'really the greatest business minds we have today' who are 'committed to contributing millions of dollars to the Trump account'. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, also at the roundtable, championed the program, saying: 'It's a bold, transformative policy that gives every eligible American child a financial head start from day one. Republicans are proud to be the party we always have been. It supports life and families, prosperity and opportunity.' The program passed the House as part of a massive budget bill but faces stiffer Senate Republican resistance over the broader package. The accounts cannot be implemented as a standalone program and depend entirely on passage of what Trump calls the 'one big, beautiful bill' that is 'among the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history', claiming it's 'fully funded through targeted reforms' including welfare changes and a proposed remittance tax. However, the congressional budget office last week found the bill would also add $2.4tn to the national debt over the next decade while cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs. The CBO analysis showed the bill, which passed the House by a single vote and no Democratic support, would leave 10.9 million more Americans without healthcare by 2034. The treasury-funded accounts, previously called 'Maga accounts' resemble existing 529 college plans but with lower contribution limits – leading some financial advisers to say the Trump accounts may not offer the best investment incentives. The move is also not without precedent: the United Kingdom operated a similar Child Trust Fund with government seed funding from 2002-2011 before discontinuing the program, while Singapore runs the Baby Bonus Scheme that includes government-matched savings accounts for children. Trump was optimistic about returns, saying beneficiaries would 'really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies into the future'. Johnson warned that failure to pass the legislation would result in 'the largest tax increase in American history' and pushed for swift congressional action on what he called 'pro-growth legislation' that would 'help every single American'. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Advice: One Key Takeaway for All Retirees
Social Security is a lifeline for many retirees, but it's on shaky ground right now. With benefit cuts potentially coming, now is the time to start preparing. A few simple steps can help protect your retirement no matter what Social Security's future looks like. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Millions of older adults rely heavily on Social Security in retirement. Around 60% of current retirees say their benefits are a major source of income, according to a 2024 Gallup poll, while an additional 28% say it's a minor income source. While there's no harm in relying on Social Security to some extent, if I could give all Americans one piece of advice about Social Security, it's this: Have a backup plan. First, it's essential to note that Social Security is unlikely to disappear entirely. Many people are concerned about the program going bankrupt. However, while benefit cuts could be on the horizon, the program itself should still be a reliable source of income to some degree. Social Security is funded primarily through payroll taxes. Today's workers pay into the program through taxes, and that money is funneled to current retirees and other beneficiaries. But in recent years, that income hasn't been enough to cover all the benefits that need to be paid out. As a result, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has tapped its two trust funds to continue paying benefits in full. According to the latest projections from the SSA Board of Trustees, which were released in May 2024, those trust funds will likely run out by 2035. Now, this doesn't mean that Social Security itself is running out of money. Again, as long as workers keep paying payroll taxes, retirees will always receive some form of benefits. But unless lawmakers find some sort of solution in the next decade, benefit cuts could be a possibility. The SSA's latest trust fund projections date back over a year. A lot has changed since then, and there could be more potential changes coming that could impact Social Security. For example, President Trump has previously proposed eliminating income tax on Social Security benefits. While that could increase retirees' income in the short term, it would also mean there's less cash for the SSA to fund benefits. Tax cuts, in general, could also hurt Social Security. If the SSA has to take more than it had planned from the trust funds, those reserves could run out even sooner than 2035. Also, with less money coming in from taxes, the subsequent benefit cuts could be even more severe than expected. To be clear, benefit cuts are not a guarantee at this point. Lawmakers still have a few more years before the trust funds run out, and they could come up with a solution to protect the program. But when your retirement is on the line, it may be wise to avoid putting your financial future in the hands of Congress. If you still have some time before retirement, it could be smart to find ways to reduce your dependence on Social Security. That could mean simply saving more in your 401(k) or IRA, or perhaps picking up a side hustle or a source of passive income. Investing in dividend stocks or ETFs can also be a smart strategy to build your investment portfolio while also generating a source of passive retirement income. Investing even $200 per month can add up to more than $137,000 after 20 years, assuming you're earning a 10% average annual return on your investment. No matter your approach, diversifying your income so that you're not completely dependent on Social Security is a wise move right now. While the program isn't going away entirely, it doesn't hurt to be prepared just in case benefit cuts are on the horizon. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Security Advice: One Key Takeaway for All Retirees was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's maritime lead a security threat, say ‘Zero Point Four' authors
A significant decline in the number of U.S.-flagged vessels and the collapse of domestic shipbuilding have created vulnerabilities in national security, say two of the co-authors of 'Zero Point Four: How U.S. Leadership in Maritime Will Secure America's Future.' James Watson and Carleen Lyden Walker said the U.S. maritime industry is at a critical moment. U.S.-flagged ships have declined to a 0.4% (200 ships) of the estimated 55,000 oceangoing vessels serving the global supply chain. 'We have lost our [maritime] leadership as a nation and we can recapture that if we decide to recognize the incredible impact of maritime security on national security, economic, energy, and food, climate and workforce,' Walker told FreightWaves in an interview. Watson and Walker said the U.S. has become so dependent on foreign-manufactured ships that it has created vulnerability in supply chains and risks shortages in military maritime than 90% of the world's goods and energy travel by ship, and most people don't understand the U.S. dependency on the maritime industry, the authors said. 'The big part of why we wrote the book … is all the opportunities that actually do exist for investments by Americans into American ships, but also industries that involve the oceans, that involve what we call the fourth industrial revolution, the use of AI, the use of the developments in science and technology that ought to be opportunities for America to basically leapfrog China,' Watson said. Watson is a retired Rear Adm. in the U.S. Coast Guard and is currently an independent consultant providing business development services to maritime clients. Walker is co-founder and managing partner of the Maritime Accelerator for Resilience and co-founder and CEO of the North American Marine Environment Protection Association.'Zero Point Four' was published in March 2024. In addition to Watson and Walker, the book was co-authored by global supply chain specialist Jonathan Kempe; technology and sustainability economist Nishan Degnarain; enterprise resilience veteran Rich Mason; and Anuj Chopra, managing director of the MaritimESG Middle East Project Management LLC. While the trade war between China and the United States appears to be cooling off in recent weeks, the nation's push to revitalize the nation's shipbuilding industry is gaining momentum. In February, the White House proposed port fees for China-built, -owned and -operated ships docking at American ports. The fees aim to minimize China's maritime dominance and help kick-start U.S. shipbuilding. The initial proposal called for vessels operated by Chinese companies to pay a $1 million port call fees and ships built in China would have to pay a $1.5 million fee per port call. The proposal now calls for fees based on net tonnage and number of containers carried. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative also recently announced exemptions from the fees for ships carrying liquified natural gas. The USTR is accepting comments through July 7 from the maritime community on the impact of port fees associated with Chinese ships. New fees proposed by the USTR are set to take effect on Oct. 14. President Donald Trump also signed an executive order on April 9 that aims to boost the U.S. international maritime presence, which has been in decline for decades. On April 20, a bipartisan bill — the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America Act of 2025 (the SHIPS Act) — was introduced in Congress with the aim of expanding the U.S.-flag international fleet by 250 ships in 10 years, while enhancing U.S. competitiveness and making more investments in the maritime workforce.A predecessor bill, the SHIPS for America Act of 2024, garnered bipartisan support last year during the Biden administration. Walker said placing fees on Chinese-built ships might ultimately hurt American consumers instead of creating more domestic ship production in the U.S. 'Passing the cost of our deficiency on to the consumer, which is what will happen with these taxes, if you will, on Chinese-built ships, I don't know how viable that is,' Walker said. 'It's like tariffs: The ultimate payor is going to be the American consumer.' Walker said a more viable proposal could be a tariff hike on U.S.-flagged ships doing repair work in shipyards in China. The tariff could be an impetus for U.S. ships to be repaired in domestic shipyards. U.S. officials floated the idea of imposing a 200% duty for work carried out on many U.S.-flag ships at yards in 'countries of concern,' according to the SHIPS Act. 'I think that one of the possibilities is restricting U.S.-flagged Jones Act ships from doing ship repair in China, which they do, and that could be a first step,' Walker said. Of 80,000 U.S. port calls each year, only a very small percentage are currently by U.S.-registered ships. '[The U.S.] intentionally walked away from its shipbuilding capability in the 1980s … and to blame China for recognizing an opportunity and capitalizing on it, I think is the wrong cast,' Walker said. 'I would rather see us say, 'Well, look, China in the early 1990s is when they decided to become a shipbuilding nation.' In the last 35 years, they have become the dominant shipbuilding nation with about 60% of the order book. How they got there also needs to be recognized.' Watson said for various reasons — including cost and efficiency — many companies in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s decided to outsource shipbuilding to countries such as Japan and South Korea initially. 'I think what happened was they just said, 'Well, we can just sacrifice that industry and we can buy ships from Korea and Japan, because they're building fine ships over there, and use our open registries to help the world globalize even more and focus on military shipbuilding,' Watson said. 'Then the Cold War ended and we looked around and took our peace dividend, balanced the budget again, and realized we didn't have a commercial shipbuilding industry anymore. So we just stuck … with the plan to buy ships from Japan and Korea, and then I think China saw the opportunity.' Walker and Watson said maritime security not only impacts national security, it impacts energy security, environmental security, economic security and workforce development. 'We think we can lead the world, but we probably shouldn't basically give away our designs and our technology to the cheapest place in the world to build,' Watson said. 'I guess just going to my position on the USTR thing … some of the things that they're doing probably have a time and a place and maybe now is the time and the place to do it.' Watson said it's critical that the government produce programs to restore the maritime industry in the U.S. 'You've got to have a program that creates investment here,' Watson said. 'If you look at the CHIPS Act, for example, where you actually have an act of Congress instead of effectively an executive decision of an agency, then you can put in some provisions that are bankable. You can have companies invest in a legislative initiative with a lot more security that it won't flip in four years compared to an executive mandate, like a tariff or a penalty on Chinese shipping.' The ultimate goal the U.S. government should be looking for is bringing in more mariners and reinvigorating the country's industrial shipbuilding complex, Watson and Walker said. 'It's the ships that come first,' Watson said. 'Then that causes an interest in terminals and shipyards and everything else. So there's been a lot of talk about … 'We've got to be more involved in the Panama Canal, we've got to stop [China's] Belt and Road Initiative.' If we just had a robust marine industry, a ship-operating industry, if we had merchant mariners, if we had the lead on marine technology, we would naturally want to own the terminals and the ships and have stakeholdings in great shipyards to service our ships.' The post China's maritime lead a security threat, say 'Zero Point Four' authors appeared first on FreightWaves.
