The average rate on the 30-year fixed mortgage dropped 16 basis points to 6.29% Friday, according to Mortgage News Daily, following the release of a weaker-than-expected August employment report.

It’s the lowest rate since Oct. 3 and the biggest one-day drop since August 2024. Rates are finally breaking out of the high 6% range, where they’ve been stuck for months.

“This was a pretty straightforward reaction to a hotly anticipated jobs report,” said Mortgage News Daily Chief Operating Officer Matt Graham. “It’s a good reminder that the market gets to decide what matters in terms of economic data, and the bond market has a clear voting record that suggests the jobs report is always the biggest potential source of volatility for rates.”

Graham said in a post on X that many lenders are “priced better” than Oct. 3 and would be quoting in the high 5% range.

The drop is a major change from May, when the rate on the 30-year fixed peaked at 7.08%. It’s big for buyers out shopping for a home today, especially given high home prices.

Take, for example, someone purchasing a $450,000 home, which is just above August’s national median price, using a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 20% down payment. Not including taxes or insurance, the monthly payment at 7% would be $2,395. At 6.29%, that payment would be $2,226, a difference of $169 per month.

That might not sound like a lot to some, but it can mean the difference in not just affording a home, but qualifying for a mortgage.

Homebuilder stocks reacted favorably Friday, with names like Lennar, DR Horton and Pulte all up roughly 3% midday. Homebuilding ETF ITB has been running hot for the last month as rates slowly moved lower. It’s up close to 13% in the past month.

The big question is whether the drop in rates will be enough to get homebuyers back in the market.

Mortgage demand from homebuyers, an early indicator, have yet to respond to gradually improving rates. Applications for a mortgage to purchase a home last week were 6.6% lower from four weeks before, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

“Homebuyers grapple with a lack of affordability, sellers contend with more competition, and builders deal with lower buyer demand,” Danielle Hale, chief economist at Realtor.com, said Friday in a statement after the release of the August employment report. “These conditions haven’t spelled catastrophe, but have created a cruel summer for the housing market.”

Some analysts have argued that buyers need to see mortgage rates in the 5% range before it really makes a difference. Home prices remain stubbornly high, and while the gains have definitely cooled, they are not yet coming down on a national level. In addition, uncertainty about the state of the economy and the job market has left many would-be buyers on the sidelines.

David Ellison continues to put his stamp on Paramount after its acquisition by Skydance.

The CEO and chairman told employees Thursday that they will be expected to work in the office five days a week starting Jan. 5, 2026, according to a memo obtained by CNBC. Employees who do not wish to make the transition can seek a buyout starting Thursday and until Sept. 15.

“To achieve what we’ve set out to do — and to truly unlock Paramount’s full potential — we must make meaningful changes that position us for long-term success,” Ellison wrote to staffers. “These changes are about building a stronger, more connected, and agile organization that can deliver on our goals and compete at the highest level. We have a lot to accomplish and we’re moving fast. We need to all be rowing in the same direction. And especially when you’re dealing with a creative business like ours, that begins with being together in person.”

The move could help Paramount thin the herd ahead of looming staffing cuts.

Variety reported last month that the company is expected to lay off between 2,000 and 3,000 employees as part of its postmerger cost-cutting measures. These cuts are slated for early November, Variety reported.

Paramount is looking to take $2 billion in costs out of the conglomerate amid advertising losses and industrywide struggles with traditional cable networks.

Phase one of Ellison’s back-to-work plan will see employees in Los Angeles and New York returning to a full five-day workweek in the new year.

Phase two will focus on offices outside LA and New York, including international locations. A similar buyout program will be offered in 2026 for those who operate in these locations.

“We recognize this represents a significant change for many, and we’re committed to supporting you throughout this transition,” Ellison wrote. “We will work closely with managers to ensure you have the time and flexibility to make the necessary adjustments.”

When Tim Cook gifted President Donald Trump a gold and glass plaque last month, the Apple CEO was hailed by Wall Street for his job managing the iPhone-maker’s relationship with the White House.

Cook, Wall Street commentators said, had largely navigated the threat of tariffs on Apple’s business successfully by offering Trump an additional $100 billion U.S. investment, a win the president could tout on American manufacturing. But despite the 24-carat trophy Cook handed Trump, the true costs of those tariffs may finally show up for Apple customers later this month.

“Thank you all, and thank you President Trump for putting American innovation and American jobs front and center,” Cook said at the event, which brought Apple’s total planned spend to $600 billion in the U.S. over the next five years. Trump, at the event, said that Apple would be exempt from forthcoming tariffs on chips that could double their price.

But as Apple prepares to announce new iPhones on Tuesday, some analysts are forecasting the company to raise prices on its devices even after all Cook has done to avoid the worst of the tariffs.

“A lot of the chatter is: Will the iPhone go up in price?” said CounterPoint research director Jeff Fieldhack.

Although smartphones haven’t seen significant price increases yet, other consumer products are seeing price increases driven by tariffs costs, including apparel, footwear, and coffee. And the tariffs have hit some electronics, notably video games — Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, have raised console prices this year in the U.S.

Some Wall Street analysts are counting on Apple to follow. Jeffries analyst Edison Lee baked in a $50 price increase into his iPhone 17 average selling price projections in a note in July. He’s got a hold rating on Apple stock.

Goldman Sachs analysts say that the potential for price increases could increase the average selling price of Apple’s devices over time, and the company’s mix of phones have been skewing toward more expensive prices.

Analysts expect Apple to release four new iPhone models this month, which will likely be named the “iPhone 17” series. Last year, Apple released four iPhone 16 models: the base iPhone 16 for $829, the iPhone 16 Plus at $899, the iPhone 16 Pro at $999 and the iPhone 16 Pro Max at $1,199.

This year, many supply chain watchers expect Apple to replace the Plus model, which has lagged the rest of the lineup, with a new, slimmer device that trades extra cameras and features for a thinner, lighter body.

The “thinner, lighter form factor may drive some demand interest,” wrote Goldman analysts, but tradeoffs like battery life may make it hard to compete with Apple’s entry-level models.

Analysts have said they expect the slim device to cost about $899, similar to how much the iPhone 16 Plus costs, but they haven’t ruled out a price bump. That would still undercut Samsung’s thin Galaxy Edge, which debuted earlier this year at $1,099.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

When Trump announced sweeping tariffs on China and the rest of the world in February, it seemed like Apple was in the crosshairs.

Apple famously makes the majority of its iPhones and other products in China, and Trump was threatening to place tariffs that could double Apple’s costs or more. Some of Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” tariffs would hit countries like Vietnam and India where Apple had hedged its production bets.

But seven months later, Apple has weathered the tariffs better than many had imagined.

The U.S. government has paused the most draconian Chinese tariffs several times, smartphones got an exemption from tariffs and Cook in May told investors that the company was able to rearrange its supply chain to import iPhones to the U.S. from India, where tariffs are lower.

Cook also successfully leaned on his relationship with Trump, visiting him in White House and taking his side in August, when Cook presented the shiny keepsake to Trump. That commitment bolstered Trump’s push to bring more high-tech manufacturing to the U.S. In exchange, Trump said he would exempt Apple from a forthcoming semiconductor tariff, too. And Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were ruled illegal in late August, although they are still in effect.

Apple hasn’t completely missed the tariff consequences. Cook said the company spent $800 million on tariff costs in the June quarter, mainly due to the IEEPA-based tariffs on China. That was less than 4% of the company’s profit, but Apple warned it could spend $1.1 billion in the current quarter on tariff expenses.

After months of eating the tariff costs itself, Apple may finally pass those costs to consumers with this month’s launch of the iPhone 17 models.

Apple has been judicious about hardware price increases in the U.S. The smaller Pro phone, for example, hasn’t gotten a price increase since its debut in 2017, holding at $999. But Apple has made some price changes.

The company raised the price of its entry level phones from $699 to $829 in 2020. And in 2022 when Apple eliminated the smaller iPhone Mini that started at $699, the company replaced it with the bigger-screen Plus that costs $899. The Pro Max also got a hike in 2023 when Apple bumped it from $1,099 to its current price of $1,199.

If Apple does increase prices on its phones this year, don’t expect management to blame tariffs.

The average selling price of smartphones around the world is rising, according to IDC. The price of smartphone components, such as the camera module and chips, have been increasing in recent years.

Apple is much more likely to focus on highlighting its phones’ new features and quietly note the new price. Analysts expect the new iPhones to have larger screens, increased memory and new, faster chips for AI.

“No one’s going to come out and say it’s related to tariffs,” said IDC analyst Nabila Popal.

One way that Apple could subtly raise prices is by eliminating the entry-level version of its phones, forcing users to upgrade to get more storage at a higher starting price. Apple typically charges $100 to double the amount of the iPhone’s storage from 128GB to 256GB.

That’s what JPMorgan analysts expect Apple to announce next week.

They forecast that Apple will leave the prices of the entry level and high-end Pro Max models alone, but they wrote that they expect the company to eliminate the entry-level version of the Pro, meaning that users will have to pay $1,099 for an iPhone 17 Pro that has more starting-level storage than its predecessor. That’s how Apple raised the price of the entry-level Pro Max in 2023.

“However, with Apple’s recent announcements relative to investments in US, the assumption is that the company will largely be shielded from tariffs, driving expectations for limited pricing changes except for those associated with changes in the base storage configuration for the Pro model,” wrote JP Morgan analyst Samik Chatterjee.

When Cook was asked about potential Apple price increases on an earnings call in May, he said there was “nothing to announce.”

“I’ll just say that the operational team has done an incredible job around optimizing the supply chain and the inventory,” Cook said.

Families who lost loved ones in two crashes of Boeing 737 Max jetliners may get their last chance to demand the company face criminal prosecution Wednesday. That’s when a federal judge in Texas is set to hear arguments on a U.S. government motion to dismiss a felony charge against Boeing.

U.S. prosecutors charged Boeing with conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with the crashes that killed 346 people off the coast of Indonesia and in Ethiopia. Federal prosecutors alleged Boeing deceived government regulators about a flight-control system that was later implicated in the fatal flights, which took place less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019.

Boeing decided to plead guilty instead of going to trial, but U.S. District Chief Judge Reed O’Connor rejected the aircraft maker’s plea agreement in December. O’Connor, who also will consider whether to let prosecutors dismiss the conspiracy charge, objected to diversity, equity and inclusion policies potentially influencing the selection of an independent monitor to oversee the company’s promised reforms.

Lawyers representing relatives of some of the passengers who died cheered O’Connor’s decision, hoping it would further their goal of seeing former Boeing executives prosecuted during a public trial and more severe financial punishment for the company. Instead, the delay worked to Boeing’s favor.

The judge’s refusal to accept the agreement meant the company was free to challenge the Justice Department’s rationale for charging Boeing as a corporation. It also meant prosecutors would have to secure a new deal for a guilty plea.

The government and Boeing spent six months renegotiating their plea deal. During that time, President Donald Trump returned to office and ordered an end to the diversity initiatives that gave O’Connor pause.

By the time the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section briefed the judge in late May, the charge and the plea were off the table. A non-prosecution agreement the two sides struck said the government would dismiss the charge in exchange for Boeing paying or investing another $1.1 billion in fines, compensation for the crash victims’ families, and internal safety and quality measures.

The Justice Department said it offered Boeing those terms in light of “significant changes” Boeing made to its quality control and anti-fraud programs since entering into the July 2024 plea deal.

The department also said it thought that persuading a jury to punish the company with a criminal conviction would be risky, while the revised agreement ensures “meaningful accountability, delivers substantial and immediate public benefits, and brings finality to a difficult and complex case whose outcome would otherwise be uncertain.”

Judge O’Connor has invited some of the families to address the court on Wednesday. One of the people who plans to speak is Catherine Berthet, whose daughter, Camille Geoffrey, died at age 28 when a 737 Max crashed shortly after takeoff from Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa Bole International Airport.

Berthet, who lives in France, is part of a group of about 30 families who want the judge to deny the government’s request and to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.

“While it is no surprise that Boeing is trying to buy everyone off, the fact that the DOJ, which had a guilty plea in its hands last year, has now decided not to prosecute Boeing regardless of the judge’s decision is a denial of justice, a total disregard for the victims and, above all, a disregard for the judge,” she said in a statement.

Justice Department lawyers maintain the families of 110 crash victims either support a pre-trial resolution or do not oppose the non-prosecution agreement. The department’s lawyers also dispute whether O’Connor has authority to deny the motion without finding prosecutors acted in bad faith instead of the public interest.

While federal judges typically defer to the discretion of prosecutors in such situations, court approval is not automatic.

In the Boeing case, the Justice Department has asked to preserve the option of refiling the conspiracy charge if the company does not hold up its end of the deal over the next two years.

Boeing reached a settlement in 2021 that protected it from criminal prosecution, but the Justice Department determined last year that the company had violated the agreement and revived the charge.

The case revolves around a new software system Boeing developed for the Max. In the 2018 and 2019 crashes, the software pitched the nose of the plane down repeatedly based on faulty readings from a single sensor, and pilots flying then-new planes for Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines were unable to regain control.

The Transportation Department’s inspector general found that Boeing did not inform key Federal Aviation Administration personnel about changes it made to the MCAS software before regulators set pilot training requirements for the Max and certified the airliner for flight.

Acting on the incomplete information, the FAA approved minimal, computer-based training for Boeing 737 pilots, avoiding the need for flight simulators that would have made it more expensive for airlines to adopt the latest version of the jetliner.

Airlines began flying the Max in 2017. After the Ethiopia crash, the planes were grounded worldwide for 20 months while the company redesigned the software.

In the final weeks of Trump’s first term, the Justice Department charged Boeing with conspiring to defraud the U.S. government but agreed to defer prosecution and drop the charge after three years if the company paid a $2.5 billion settlement and strengthened its ethics and legal compliance programs.

The 2021 settlement agreement was on the verge of expiring when a panel covering an unused emergency exit blew off a 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight over Oregon at the beginning of last year. No one was seriously injured, but the potential disaster put Boeing’s safety record under renewed scrutiny.

A former Boeing test pilot remains the only individual charged with a crime in connection with the crashes. In March 2022, a federal jury acquitted him of misleading the FAA about the amount of training pilots would need to fly the Max.

The Walt Disney Company will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that it enabled the unlawful collection of children’s personal data on YouTube.

The FTC claimed the company allowed data to be collected from kids who viewed videos directed at children on YouTube without notifying parents or obtaining their consent.

The complaint alleged that Disney violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule by not labeling some YouTube videos as being made for children. The agency claimed the company was able to collect data from viewers of child-directed content who were under the age of 13 and use it for targeted advertising.

In 2019, after a settlement with the FTC, YouTube began requiring content creators to list whether uploaded videos were “made for kids” or “not made for kids.” The designation ensures that personal information is not collected from the “made for kids” videos and personalized ads will not be served to viewers. Comments are also disabled on those videos.

The proposed settlement would require Disney to pay a $10 million civil penalty, comply with the children’s data protection rule and implement a program to review whether videos posted to YouTube should be designated as “made for kids.”

“Supporting the well-being and safety of kids and families is at the heart of what we do,” the company said in a statement obtained by CNBC. “This settlement does not involve Disney owned and operated digital platforms but rather is limited to the distribution of some of our content on YouTube’s platform. Disney has a long tradition of embracing the highest standards of compliance with children’s privacy laws, and we remain committed to investing in the tools needed to continue being a leader in this space.”

Axios was the first to report the settlement.

Alphabet’s Google must share data with rivals to open up competition in online search, a judge in Washington ruled on Tuesday, while rejecting prosecutors’ bid to make the internet giant sell off its popular Chrome browser and Android operating system.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai expressed concerns at trial in the case in April that the data-sharing measures sought by the U.S. Department of Justice could enable Google‘s rivals to reverse-engineer its technology.

Google has said previously that it plans to file an appeal, which means it could take years before the company is required to act on the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta also barred Google from entering into exclusive agreements that would prohibit device makers from preinstalling rival products on new devices.

Google had argued that loosening its agreements with device makers, browser developers and mobile network operators was the only appropriate remedy in the case. Its most recent deals with device makers Samsung Electronics and Motorola and wireless carriers AT&T and Verizon allow them to load rival search offerings, according to documents shown at trial in April.

The ruling results from a five-year legal battle between one of the world’s most profitable companies and its home country, the U.S., where Mehta ruled last year that the company holds an illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.

At a trial in April, prosecutors argued for far-reaching remedies to restore competition and prevent Google from extending its dominance in search to artificial intelligence.

Google said the proposals would go far beyond what is legally justified and would give away its technology to competitors.

In addition to the case over search, Google is embroiled in litigation over its dominance in other markets.

The company recently said it will continue to fight a ruling requiring it to revamp its app store in a lawsuit won by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games.

And Google is scheduled to go to trial in September to determine remedies in a separate case brought by the Justice Department where a judge found the company holds illegal monopolies in online advertising technology.

The Justice Department’s two cases against Google are part of a larger bipartisan crackdown by the U.S. on Big Tech firms, which began during President Donald Trump’s first term and includes cases against Meta Platforms, Amazon and Apple.

Kraft Heinz will split into two companies, reversing much of the blockbuster $46 billion merger from a decade ago that created one of the biggest food companies in the world.

The first of the two new companies, which are not yet named, will primarily include shelf-stable meals and will be home to brands such as Heinz, Philadelphia and Kraft mac and cheese. Kraft Heinz said that company on its own would have $15.4 billion in 2024 net sales, and approximately 75% of those sales would come from sauces, spreads and seasonings.

Kraft Heinz said the second new company would be a “scaled portfolio of North America staples” and would include items such as Oscar Mayer, Kraft singles and Lunchables. That company will have approximately $10.4 billion in 2024 net sales.

“Kraft Heinz’s brands are iconic and beloved, but the complexity of our current structure makes it challenging to allocate capital effectively, prioritize initiatives and drive scale in our most promising areas,” said Miguel Patricio, executive chair of the board for Kraft Heinz. “By separating into two companies, we can allocate the right level of attention and resources to unlock the potential of each brand to drive better performance and the creation of long-term shareholder value.”

The deal that created Kraft Heinz in 2015 was the brainchild of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and private equity firm 3G Capital. While investors originally cheered the merger, the luster began to fade as the combined company’s U.S. sales faltered.

Then came a disclosure in February 2019 that Kraft Heinz had received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission related to its accounting policies and internal controls. The company also slashed its dividend by 36% and took a $15.4 billion write-down on Kraft and Oscar Mayer, two of its biggest brands. Days later, Buffett told CNBC that Berkshire Hathaway had overpaid for Kraft.

A leadership shakeup and more write-downs of iconic brands, like Maxwell House and Velveeta, followed. Kraft Heinz also began divesting some of its businesses, selling off most of its cheese unit to French dairy giant Lactalis and its nuts division, including the Planters brand, to Hormel.

In recent quarters, the company has invested in boosting some of its brands, like Lunchables and Capri Sun. Despite turnaround efforts, shares of Kraft Heinz have slid roughly 60% since the merger closed in 2015.

The split comes as more big food companies pursue breakups to divest from slower-growth categories and impress investors again.

In August, Keurig Dr Pepper announced that it will undo the 2018 deal that merged a coffee company with the 7 Up owner. Keurig Dr Pepper plans to separate after it closes its $18 billion acquisition of Dutch coffee company JDE Peet’s. And two years ago, Kellogg spun off its snacks business into Kellanova and renamed itself as WK Kellogg.

Spirit Airlines on Friday filed for bankruptcy protection, just months after the budget carrier failed to secure better financial footing when it came out of Chapter 11 protection in March.

The Dania Beach, Florida-based airline said under this bankruptcy, it will reduce its network and shrink its fleet, cuts that it said will reduce costs by “hundreds of millions of dollars” a year.

In a release, Spirit said guests can continue to book, travel and use tickets, credits and loyalty points. Wages and benefits will continue to be paid and honored, including contractors, it said. Spirit intends to pay vendors and suppliers for goods and services provided on or after the filing date in the ordinary course.

“Since emerging from our previous restructuring, which was targeted exclusively on reducing Spirit’s funded debt and raising equity capital, it has become clear that there is much more work to be done and many more tools are available to best position Spirit for the future,” Spirit CEO Dave Davis said in a news release on Friday.

Spirit had just gotten out of bankruptcy in March after four months, only to be dragged down by continued high costs and weaker U.S. domestic demand. The carrier had struggled for years as it dealt with a glut of U.S. flights, a Pratt & Whitney engine recall and a failed takeover by JetBlue Airways, a deal that was blocked in court.

Firms that used Spirit’s aircrafts had reached out to rival airlines in recent weeks to gauge executives’ interest in some of the carrier’s planes, according to people familiar with the matter.

Spirit is the United States’ largest budget airline, followed closely by rival Frontier Airlines which has tried and failed to merge with Spirit repeatedly since 2022. Frontier on Tuesday announced 20 new routes that compete with Spirit to win over its struggling competitor’s customers.

The de minimis exemption, an obscure trade law provision that has simultaneously fueled and eroded businesses across the globe, officially came to an end on Friday following an executive order by President Donald Trump.

For nearly a decade, shipments valued under $800 were allowed to enter the country virtually duty free and with less oversight. Now, those shipments from the likes of Tapestry, Lululemon and just about any other retailer with an online presence will be tariffed and processed in the same way that larger packages are handled.

In May, Trump ended the exemption for goods coming from China and Hong Kong, and on July 30 he expanded the rollback to all countries, calling it a “catastrophic loophole” that’s been used to evade tariffs and get “unsafe or below-market” products into the U.S.

The de minimis exemption had previously been slated to end in July 2027 as part of sweeping legislation passed by Congress, but Trump’s executive order eliminated the provision much sooner, giving businesses, customs officials and postal services less time to prepare.

“The ending of that under-$800-per-person-per-day rule, from a global perspective, is about to probably cause a bit of pandemonium,” said Lynlee Brown, a partner in the global trade division at accounting firm EY. “There’s a financial implication, there’s an operational implication, and then there’s pure compliance, right? Like, these have all been informal entries. No one’s really looked at them.”

Already, the sudden change has snarled supply chains from France to Singapore and led post offices across the world to temporarily suspend shipments to the U.S. so they can ensure their systems are updated and able to comply with the new regulations.

It’s forced businesses both large and small to rethink not just their supply chains, but their overall business models, because of the impact the change could have on their bottom lines — setting off a panic in board rooms across the country, logistics experts said.

“Obviously it’s a big change for operating models for companies, not just the Sheins and the Temus, but for companies that have historically had e-com and brick-and-mortar stores,” Brown said.

The change also means consumers, already are under pressure from persistent inflation and high interest rates, could now see even higher prices on a wide range of goods, from Colombian bathing suits to specialty ramen subscription boxes shipped straight from Japan.

The end of de minimis could cost U.S. consumers at least $10.9 billion, or $136 per family, according to a 2025 paper by Pablo Fajgelbaum and Amit Khandelwal for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The research found low-income and minority consumers would feeling the biggest impact as they rely more on the cheaper, imported purchases.

Popularized by Chinese e-tailers Shein and Temu, use of the de minimis exemption has exploded in the last decade, ballooning from 134 million shipments in 2015 to over 1.36 billion in 2024. Prior to the recent change to limit its use, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it was processing over 4 million de minimis shipments into the country each day.

A 2023 House report found more than 60% of de minimis shipments in 2021 came from China, but because the packages require less information than larger containers, very little information is known about their origins and the types of goods they contain. That opacity is one of the key reasons why both former President Joe Biden and Trump sought to curtail or end the exemption.

Both administrations have said the exemption was overused and abused and that it’s made it difficult for CBP officials to target and block illegal or unsafe shipments coming into the U.S. because the packages aren’t subject to the same level of scrutiny as larger containers.

“We didn’t have any compliance information … on those shipments, and then that is where the danger of drugs and whatnot being in those shipments” comes in, said Irina Vaysfeld, a principal in KPMG’s trade and customs practice.

The Biden administration particularly focused on how the exemption allowed goods made with forced labor to make it into the country in violation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act. Meanwhile, Trump has said the exemption has been used to ship fentanyl and other synthetic opioids into the U.S. In a fact sheet published on July 30, the White House said 90% of all cargo seizures in fiscal 2024, including 98% of narcotics seizures and 97% of intellectual property rights seizures, originated as de minimis shipments.

Across the globe, it’s common for countries to allow low-value shipments to be imported duty-free as a means to streamline and facilitate global trade, but typically, it’s for packages valued around $200, not $800, said EY’s Brown.

Until 2016, the U.S.’s threshold for low-value shipments was also $200, but it was changed to $800 when Congress passed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which sought to benefit businesses, U.S. consumers and the overall U.S. economy, according to the Congressional Research Service. It said higher thresholds provide a “significant economic benefit” to both business and shoppers and thus, the overall economy.

While well-intentioned, the law came with unintended consequences, said Brown.

The “rise in value, from $200 to $800, just made it kind of like a free for all to say, OK, everything come in,” she said.

Eventually companies designed supply chains around the exemption: They set up bonded warehouses, where duties can be deferred prior to export, in places like Canada and Mexico and then imported goods in bulk to those regions before sending them across the border one by one, duty free, as customer orders rolled in, said Brown.

“Companies have really laid out their supply chain in a very specific way [around de minimis] and that’s really the crux of the issue,” said KPMG’s Vaysfeld. “The way that the supply chain has been laid out now may need to change.”

Until the rise of Shein and Temu, the de minimis exemption was rarely discussed in retail circles. Soon, the e-commerce behemoths began facing widespread criticism for their use of what many called a loophole.

In 2023, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party released a report on Shein and Temu and said the two companies were “likely responsible for more than 30 percent of all packages shipped to the United States daily under the de minimis provision, and likely nearly half of all de minimis shipments to the U.S. from China.”

The revelation sparked widespread consternation among retail executives, lobbyists and government officials who said the companies’ use of the exemption was unfair competition.

However, behind closed doors, companies large and small began mimicking the same model after realizing how it could reduce the steep costs that come along with selling goods online.

Direct-to-consumer companies that only have online presences have relied on it more heavily, so much so that their businesses may not work without it, said Vaysfeld.

“Some of the companies we’ve spoken to, they’ve modeled out, if the tariffs continue for one year, for two years, how does that impact their profitability, and they know how long they can last,” said Vaysfeld. “These aren’t the huge companies, right? These are the smaller companies … Depending on what country they’re sourcing from or where they’re manufacturing, it could really impact their profitability that they can’t stay in business for the long term.”

While smaller, digital companies are more exposed, “pretty much most companies that you can think of” had been using the exemption in some form before it ended, said Vaysfeld.

Take Coach and Kate Spade’s parent company Tapestry: About 13% to 14% of the company’s sales were previously covered under de minimis and will now be subject to a 30% tariff, according to an estimate by equity research firm Barclays.

On the company’s earnings call earlier this month, Chief Financial Officer Scott Roe said tariffs will hit its profits by a total of $160 million this year, including the impact of the end of de minimis. That amounts to about 2.3% of margin headwind, he said.

Shares of the company fell nearly 16% the day that Tapestry reported the profit hit.

In a statement, Roe said Tapestry used de minimis to help support its strong online business, adding it is a practice that “many companies with sophisticated supply chains have been doing for years.”

To help offset its termination, he said Tapestry is looking for ways to reduce costs and is leaning on its manufacturing footprint across many different countries.

Canadian retailer Lululemon is another company that uses de minimis, according to Wells Fargo. Last week, the bank cut its price target on the company’s stock from $225 to $205, citing the end of de minimis. In the note, Wells Fargo analyst Ike Boruchow said the equity research firm sees a potential 90 cent to $1.10 headwind to Lululemon’s earnings per share from the de minimis elimination.

Lululemon declined to comment, citing the company’s quiet period ahead of its reporting earnings.

The National Retail Federation, the industry’s largest trade organization, has not taken a position in favor of or against the exemption. It has members who both supported and opposed the policy, said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at NRF.

Retailers of all sizes, including independent sellers with digital storefronts, have used the approach as “a convenient way to get products to the consumer” for less, Gold said.

“Their costs are going to go up and those costs could be passed on to the consumer at the end of the day,” Gold said.

The most acute impact of the end of de minimis is expected to be felt on online marketplaces where millions of small businesses sell goods like Etsy, eBay and Shopify and used de minimis to defray costs when sending online orders from other parts of the globe to the U.S.

American shoppers have gotten used to buying artwork, coffee mugs, T-shirts and other items from merchants outside the country without paying duties. With that tariff exemption gone, consumers could face higher costs and a more limited selection of items to choose from.

Etsy, eBay and some other retailers sought to defend the loophole prior to its removal, submitting public comments on proposed de minimis regulation by the CBP. An eBay public policy executive said the company was concerned that restrictions to de minimis “would impose significant burdens on American consumers and importers.”

Etsy’s head of public policy, Jeffrey Zubricki, said the artisan marketplace supports “smart U.S. de minimis reform,” but that it was wary of changes that could “disproportionately affect small American sellers.”

“These exemptions are a powerful tool that help small creators, artisans and makers participate in and navigate cross-border trade,” Zubricki wrote in a March letter to CBP.

An Etsy spokesperson declined to comment on the policy change. Etsy CFO Lanny Baker said at a Bernstein conference in May that transactions between U.S. buyers and European sellers comprise about 25% of the company’s gross merchandise sales.

EBay didn’t immediately provide a comment in response to a request from CNBC. The company warned in its latest earnings report that the end of de minimis outside of China could impact its guidance, though CEO Jamie Iannone told CNBC in July that he believes eBay is generally “well suited” to navigate the shifting trade environment.

Some eBay and Etsy sellers based in the UK, Canada and other countries are temporarily closing off their businesses to the U.S. as they work out a plan to navigate the higher tariffs. Blair Nadeau, who owns a Canadian bridal accessories company, was forced to take that step this week.

“This is devastating on so many levels and millions of small businesses worldwide are now having their careers, passions and livelihoods threatened,” Nadeau wrote in an Instagram post on Tuesday. “Just this past hour I have had to turn away two U.S. customers and it broke my heart.”

Nadeau sells her bespoke wedding veils, jewelry and hair adornments through her own website and on Etsy, where 70% of her customer base is in the U.S. The de minimis provision had been a “lifeline” for many Canadian businesses to get their products in the hands of American consumers, Nadeau said in an interview.

“This is really hitting me,” Nadeau said. “It’s like all of a sudden 70% of your salary has been removed overnight.”

In the absence of de minimis, online merchants are faced with either paying import charges upfront and potentially passing those costs on to shoppers through price hikes, or shipping products “delivery duty unpaid,” in which case it’s the customer’s responsibility to pay any duties upon arrival.

Alexandra Birchmore, an artist based in the Cotswolds region of England, said she expects to raise the price of her oil paintings on Etsy by 10% as a result of paying the duties upfront.

“At the moment every small business forum I am on is in chaos about this,” Birchmore said. “It looks to me to be a disaster where no one benefits.”

The disruption could end up being a boon for the likes of Amazon and Walmart. U.S. consumers may turn to major retailers if they face steeper prices elsewhere, as well as potential shipping delays due to backlogs or other issues at the border.

Amazon, in particular, has already proven resilient after the U.S. axed the de minimis provision for shipments from China and Hong Kong in May. The company’s sales increased 13% in the three-month period that ended June 30, compared with 10% growth in the prior quarter. Amazon’s unit sales grew 12%, an acceleration from the first quarter.

Both Amazon and Walmart have fulfillment operations in the U.S. that allow overseas businesses to ship items in bulk and store them in the companies’ warehouses before they’re dispatched to shoppers. Shein and Temu largely eschewed the model in the past in favor of the de minimis exception, but they’ve since moved to open more warehouses in the U.S. in the wake of rising tariffs.

Since the exemption ended on Chinese imports in May, the impact on Shein and Temu has been swift. Temu was forced to change its business model in the U.S. and stop shipping products to American consumers from Chinese factories.

The end of de minimis, as well as Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese imports, also forced Temu to raise prices, reign in its aggressive online advertising push and adjust which goods were available to American shoppers.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that Temu has resumed shipping goods to the U.S. from Chinese factories and will also increase its advertising spend following what it called a “truce” between Washington and Beijing.

Temu didn’t return a request for comment.

Meanwhile, Shein has been forced to raise prices and daily active users on both platforms in the U.S. have fallen since the de minimis loophole was closed, CNBC previously reported. Temu’s U.S. daily active users plunged 52% in May versus March, while Shein’s were down 25%, according to data shared with CNBC by market intelligence firm Sensor Tower.

It’s been a busy week for Cracker Barrel Old Country Store’s marketing team.

The restaurant chain announced a rebrand and new logo last week, faced widespread criticism from social media users, including President Donald Trump, and proceeded to walk back its plan to change the logo.

In that span of time, the company lost and regained almost $100 million in market value, bringing it about back to where it started. The stock gained 8% on Wednesday.

The Cracker Barrel saga is just the latest example of a consumer-facing company making big branding decisions, then pulling back after alienating its customer base.

“It’s very tricky to be a brand for everyone today,” Carreen Winters, president of reputation at the global public relations firm MikeWorldWide, said in an interview. “Legacy brands are particularly tricky, because you have to figure out what is cherished and authentic from the old and marry it with the new.

“In Cracker Barrel’s case, they’re trying to attract a new, younger customer [which] is no longer sufficient,” she continued. “You need to actually think about all of your stakeholders and how they will react, respond, feel about what you’re doing or the direction you’re taking. And you need to be sure that what you’re doing is consistent with shared values.”

Rebranding failures are not a new phenomenon. One of the most famous marketing blunders of all time happened in 1985 when the Coca-Cola company introduced “New Coke” with a new formula. After a firestorm of outrage from its customers, the company returned to its classic formula a few months later.

But social media has made backlash from consumers faster and more widespread, meaning businesses are usually quicker to walk back on their branding failures.

In 2010, retailer Gap ditched its decades-old blue box logo for a more minimalist design. It faced intense backlash on social media through thousands of engagements and, within less than a week, the company said it was reverting to its original logo.

More recently in May, Warner Bros. Discovery announced its streaming platform would undergo another name change, after switching from HBO to HBO Max to Max and then back again to HBO Max.

Major rebrands don’t always go awry. For example, Kentucky Fried Chicken successfully rebranded to KFC in 1991. Its customers already used the acronym and the rebrand signified that the restaurant chain offers more than just fried chicken.

Dunkin’ Donuts also successfully underwent its name change to Dunkin’ in 2019. It did face some criticism from its loyal customers at the time, but Winters said today the “Dunkin’” name and branding are widely accepted over its original name.

“Dunkin’ rebranded in accordance with the behavior that the customer created,” she said. “It aligned with their strategy of being more than Donuts and really building their coffee business.”

She also mentioned IHOP as an example of a brand that has been able to freshen up its look and stay relevant in culture. She said IHOP’s change has been an “evolution, not a revolution.”

Beth LaGuardia Cooper, chief marketing officer at Advantage, The Authority Company, added during an interview that Starbucks had subtle changes to its logo over time, which allowed it to hold the base of its identity close.

While some social media users disliked Cracker Barrel’s new branding simply because they said it lacked substance and was too “sterile” or “soulless,” others, especially conservatives, claimed the new logo leaned into “wokeness” and diversity efforts.

Cracker Barrel is widely considered a classic American restaurant chain. It began in Tennessee in 1969 and its branding evokes Southern charm and nostalgia for its consumer base.

Eric Schiffer, chairman of the firm Reputation Management Consultants, said the new branding, without the iconic “Uncle Herschel” figure, suggested to conservatives that having a white man featured on the logo was wrong or politically incorrect.

He said that pushback represents a larger trend where conservatives are feeling under attack by diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

“I think the perspective of conservatives is, don’t ruin Cracker Barrel with the Bud Light meets Jaguar marketing playbook,” said Schiffer, adding that those brands “attempted to disrupt positively and what they did was they nuked brand sentiment and shareholder confidence.”

In November, Tata Motors-owned Jaguar Land Rover announced a rebrand that removed its “leaper” big cat imagery from its logo and changed the brand’s font. Its new promotional materials included brightly dressed models, but no cars. The brand faced significant pushback, including tens of thousands of responses on social media.

Elon Musk criticized the company on X at the time, asking Jaguar’s official account: “Do you sell cars?”

Earlier this month, Trump piped in with his insults, calling Jaguar’s ad campaign “stupid” and “seriously WOKE.”

The Telegraph reported in May that Jaguar was searching for a new advertising agency after the public backlash.

Similarly, Anheuser-Busch InBev’s Bud Light faced heavy criticism from conservatives in 2023 after a collaboration between the beer brand and social influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who is transgender.

“If you’re trying to be a tough, male-focused, football fan-oriented beer, the last thing you want to do is put the wrong spokesperson in front of the brand,” Schiffer said. “It will turn off that audience and it allows competitors to capture that market share.”

“The throughline in all of this is, don’t rip apart and disrespect audiences that brought you to the dance,” Schiffer said. “Find a way, if you’re going to want to expand, do it in a way that doesn’t cut at the core of what the brand stands for — and in the process, create cognitive dissonance and blow up market cap.”

Branding experts told CNBC that at the end of the day, people are talking about Cracker Barrel, which is a win for the company by itself.

“Everybody loves a comeback in America,” LaGuardia Cooper said. “So I would root for them to make this happen, make something good out of it.”