Amazon is eliminating a program that allows members of its Prime subscription program to share free shipping benefits with people outside their household.

The company began notifying users in recent days that it plans to end the Prime Invitee Program on Oct. 1, according to a notice viewed by CNBC.

“We are writing to inform you that the Prime Invitee Program, which allowed sharing Prime’s fast, free delivery with others, will end on October 1, 2025,” the notice states. “Your invited guests will be notified directly about this change by September 5, 2025.”

Amazon previously let Prime members share free, two-day shipping with one other adult in their household, even if they used a different address.

Starting next month, the company will require invitees who don’t live with the account holder to sign up for their own Prime membership.

It’s phasing out the program in favor of Amazon Family, which lets Prime members share free shipping and other benefits with one other adult, four children and up to four teens added before April 7, 2025.

All users must share the same primary residential address, or the “address you consider to be your home and where you spend the majority of your time,” Amazon said.

The change comes as Reuters reported Monday that Amazon’s Prime signups in the U.S. fell short of last year’s total and its own targets, citing internal company documents. Amazon told the outlet that Prime membership continues to grow in the U.S. and internationally.

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.

A new push by states to tax the real estate of the wealthy has sparked a backlash among brokers and potential buyers, who say the taxes punish the most important local spenders.

From tax hikes on pricey second homes in Rhode Island and Montana to Cape Cod’s proposed transfer tax on homes over $2 million and the L.A. mansion tax, state and local governments see a revenue gold mine in the pricey properties of the wealthy.

“It’s a smack in the face to people who just spend money here,” said Donna Krueger-Simmons, sales agent with Mott & Chace Sotheby’s International in Watch Hill, Rhode Island.

The tax hikes are being driven by tighter state budgets and populist anger over housing costs. States are looking to offset budget cuts expected from the new tax and spending bill in Washington. At the same time, the housing market has become a tale of two buyers, with the middle class and younger families struggling to afford homes while the luxury housing market thrives from wealthy all-cash buyers.

The solution for many states: tax the homes of the rich.

Rhode Island’s new levy, nicknamed “The Taylor Swift Tax,” is among the most extreme. The popstar bought a beach house in the state’s elite Watch Hill community in 2013.

The measure imposes a new surcharge on second homes valued at more than $1 million. For non-primary residences, or those not occupied for more than 182 days a year, the state will charge $2.50 for every $500 in assessed value above the first $1 million. That charge is on top of existing property taxes and will add up to big increases for luxury homes in Newport, Watch Hill and other well-heeled, summer communities in the state.

A version of this article appeared in CNBC’s Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox.

Swift’s house, for instance, is assessed at around $28 million, according to local real estate records. Her current property taxes are estimated at around $201,000 a year. The new charges will add another $136,442 to her annual taxes, bringing her yearly total to $337,442 — even though locals say she rarely visits.

Real estate brokers say the increase targets the very taxpayers who already contribute the most. Wealthy second-homeowners pay hefty property taxes but don’t use many local services, since their primary residences are in New York; Boston; Palm Beach, Florida; or other locales. Their kids typically don’t attend the local schools, and they’re infrequent users of the police, fire, water and other municipal services since most stay for only 10 to 12 weeks out of the year.

“These are people who just come here for the summer, spend their money and pay their fair share of taxes,” said Krueger-Simmons. “They’re getting penalized just because they also live somewhere else.”

Brokers and longtime residents say the summer residents of Newport, Watch Hill and other seasonal beach towns are the economic engines for local businesses, restaurants and hotels.

“You’re just hurting the people who support small business,” said Lori Joyal, of the Lila Delman Compass office in Watch Hill. “You’re chasing away the people who spend most of the money in these towns.”

Rhode Island is also hiking its conveyance tax on luxury real estate starting in October. The tax on real estate sales will be an additional $3.75 for each $500 paid above $800,000 for a real estate purchase. At the same time, the state’s steep estate tax deters many of the ultra-wealthy from living there full-time.

Brokers say some second-home owners are considering selling and many would-be buyers are pausing their purchases. While the tax hike alone isn’t expected to lead to any significant wealth flight, Joyal said potential buyers in Rhode Island are already looking at coastal towns in Connecticut as alternatives.

“It’s always about choices,” she said. “At the end of the day it’s about how they can choose to spend their discretionary dollars. Connecticut has some beautiful coastal towns without some of these other high taxes.”

Montana has passed a similar tax. The influx of Californians and other affluent newcomers who poured into the state during Covid has led to soaring home prices and growing resentment over gentrification. Meanwhile, the state’s low income tax rate and lack of a sales tax has left it little room for revenue increases to handle the necessary increase in services.

In May, the state passed a two-tier property tax plan, lowering rates for full-time residents and raising taxes on second homes and short-term rentals. For primary residences and long-term rentals valued at or below the state’s median home price, the tax rate will be 0.76%. Homes worth more than that will face a tiered-rate system of up to 1.9% on any value over four times the median price.

The Montana Department of Revenue expects the changes, which will start next year, will hike second-home taxes by an average of 68%. Brokers say some buyers are waiting to see the tax bills next year before making any decisions about whether to buy or sell.

“I’ve heard about some buyers who have put on the brakes to wait for the dust to settle and see what happens,” said Valerie Johnson, with PureWest Christie’s International Real Estate in Bozeman, Montana.

Johnson said that while the tax was touted by legislators as hitting wealthy second-home owners, it will also hit longtime locals who own investment homes and rent them out for income.

“These are small businesses for many people,” she said.

Manish Bhatt, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said tax hikes aimed at wealthy second-home owners may be popular politically, but they rarely make for successful or efficient tax policy. Real property tax reform should be broad based, rather than focused on taxpayers who are singled out just because they don’t live in a community full-time, he said.

“There is a grab to find revenue right now,” he said. “But taxing second-home owners could have the opposite impact — dissuading people from owning a second home or continue to own in those communities.”

While the new taxes alone might not drive out the wealthy, “we do know that taxes are important to businesses and individuals and could cause people to make a decision to buy in another nearby state,” Bhatt said.

The projected revenue from the new taxes may also disappoint. When Los Angeles passed its so-called “mansion tax” in 2022, proponents touted revenue projections of between $600 million to $1.1 billion a year. The tax, imposed on real estate sales over $5 million, has only raised $785 million after more than two years, according to the Los Angeles Housing Department.

Higher interest rates that hurt the housing market have played a role, experts say. Yet Michael Manville, professor of urban planning at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said wealthy buyers and sellers also reduced transactions in response to the tax.

“The lower revenue is a reason to be concerned because it suggests that the tax might actually be reducing transactions, which in turn can reduce housing production and property tax revenue,” he said.

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.

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.