Dick’s Sporting Goods said Wednesday it’s standing by its full-year guidance, which includes the expected impact from all tariffs currently in effect.

The sporting goods giant said it’s expecting earnings per share to be between $13.80 and $14.40 in fiscal 2025 — in line with the $14.29 that analysts had expected, according to LSEG.

It’s projecting revenue to be between $13.6 billion and $13.9 billion, which is also in line with expectations of $13.9 billion, according to LSEG.

“We are reaffirming our 2025 outlook, which reflects our strong start to the year and confidence in our strategies and operational strength while still acknowledging the dynamic macroeconomic environment,” CEO Lauren Hobart said in a news release. “Our performance demonstrates the momentum and strength of our long-term strategies and the consistency of our execution.”

Here’s how the company performed in its first fiscal quarter compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

The company’s reported net income for the three-month period that ended May 3 was $264 million, or $3.24 per share, compared with $275 million, or $3.30 per share, a year earlier. Excluding one-time items related to its acquisition of Foot Locker, Dick’s posted earnings per share of $3.37.

Sales rose to $3.17 billion, up about 5% from $3.02 billion a year earlier.

For most investors, Dick’s results won’t come as a surprise because it preannounced some of its numbers about two weeks ago when it unveiled plans to acquire its longtime rival Foot Locker for $2.4 billion. So far, Dick’s has seen a mix of reactions to the proposed acquisition.

On one hand, Dick’s deal for Foot Locker will allow it to enter international markets for the first time and reach a customer that’s crucial to the sneaker market and doesn’t typically shop in the retailer’s stores. On the other hand, Dick’s is acquiring a business that’s been struggling for years and some aren’t sure needs to exist due to its overlap with other wholesalers and the rise of brands selling directly to consumers.

While shares of Foot Locker initially soared more than 80% after the deal was announced, shares of Dick’s fell about 15%.

The transaction is expected to close in the second half of fiscal 2025 and, for now, Dick’s outlook doesn’t include acquisition-related costs or results from the acquisition.

In the first full fiscal year post-close, Dick’s expects the transaction to be accretive to earnings and deliver between $100 million and $125 million in cost synergies.

Macy’s cut its full-year profit guidance on Wednesday even as it beat Wall Street’s quarterly earnings expectations, as the retailer’s CEO said it will hike prices of certain items to offset tariffs.

In a news release, the department store operator said it reduced its earnings outlook because of higher tariffs, more promotions and “some moderation” in discretionary spending. Macy’s stuck by its full-year sales forecast, however.

For fiscal 2025, Macy’s now expects adjusted earnings per share of $1.60 to $2, down from its previous forecast of $2.05 to $2.25. It reaffirmed its full-year sales guidance of between $21 billion and $21.4 billion, which would be a decline from $22.29 billion in the most recent full year.

In an interview with CNBC, CEO Tony Spring said about 15 cents to 40 cents per share of the guidance cut is due to tariffs. He said about 20% of the company’s merchandise comes from China.

Macy’s will raise some prices and stop carrying certain items to mitigate the hit from tariffs, he added.

“You’re dealing with it on both the demand side as well as the increased cost side,” he said. “And so navigating that, we have a series of different scenarios to try to figure out kind of what will be the reality, and we want our guidance to reflect the flexibility of that uncertainty, so that we can react in real time to how we serve or better serve the consumer.”

Spring said the company will be “surgical” with price changes.

“It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of approach,” he said. “There are going to be items that are the same price as they were a year ago. There is going to be, selectively, items that may be more expensive, and there are items that we might not carry because the pricing doesn’t merit the quality or the perceived value by the consumer.”

Here’s how Macy’s did during its fiscal first quarter, compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:

In the three-month period that ended May 3, the company’s net income was $38 million, or 13 cents per share, compared with $62 million, or 22 cents per share, in the year-ago period. Sales dropped from $4.85 billion in the year-ago quarter. Excluding some one-time charges including restructuring charges, adjusted earnings per share were 16 cents.

The company’s shares were down more than 2% in early trading on Wednesday.

Economic uncertainty — including President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff announcements — has complicated Macy’s turnaround plans. The New York City-based legacy retailer is more than a year into a three-year effort to become a smaller, but healthier business. It’s shuttering weaker stores and investing in stronger parts of the company, including luxury department store Bloomingdale’s and beauty chain Bluemercury. It has also tried to improve the customer experience, including by speeding up online deliveries and adding staff to stores.

Spring told analysts on the earnings call that the tariff impact on Macy’s outlook includes the additional costs of inventory previously imported under the 145% China tariffs, which have since dropped to 30%. He said the outlook does not include a potential increase in tariffs on the European Union or any other U.S. trading partner.

Trump recently threatened to implement, and then delayed, a 50% tariff on the EU.

Macy’s sells a mix of national band private brands, which are sold exclusively at its stores and on its website. Spring told CNBC that the company has reduced the share of its private brands that comes from China to about 27% — a drop from 32% last year and more than 50% before the Covid pandemic.

CFO Adrian Mitchell said on the company’s earnings call that Macy’s has taken action to blunt the impact of tariffs on national brands it sells, too. He said the company has renegotiated orders with vendors, canceled some orders and delayed others.

“We’ve been able to gain some vendor discounts, which has been helpful to us, but we’re absorbing some of that price as well,” he said.

And in some cases, Macy’s is keeping prices the same despite higher costs to appeal to value-conscious customers and gain market share from competitors, Mitchell added.

Spring said on the company’s earnings call on Wednesday that Macy’s sales were stronger in March and April compared to February, attributing some of that to improving weather. So far, sales trends in the second quarter have been above those in March and April, he added.

Macy’s plans to close about 150 underperforming namesake stores across the country by early 2027.

In the fiscal first quarter, Macy’s namesake brand remained its weakest. Comparable sales across Macy’s owned and licensed business, plus its online marketplace, declined 2.1% year over year.

When Macy’s took out the stores that it plans to shutter, however, trends looked slightly better. Comparable sales of its go-forward business, including its owned and licensed business and online marketplace, declined 1.9%

On the other hand, comparable sales at Bloomingdale’s rose 3.8% year over year, including its owned, licensed and marketplace businesses. Comparable sales at Bluemercury climbed 1.5% year over year.

To try to turn its namesake stores around, Macy’s has invested in 50 locations — dubbed the “First 50” — with more staffing, sharper displays and changes to its mix of merchandise. It has expanded that initiative to 75 additional stores, bringing the total to 125 locations that have gotten increased attention. That’s a little over a third of the 350 namesake locations that Macy’s plans to keep open.

Those 125 locations performed better than the overall Macy’s brand. Comparable sales among those revamped stores owned and licensed by Macy’s were down 0.8% compared with the year-ago period.

On Macy’s earnings call in March — before Trump made several sudden tariff moves that baffled companies and investors — Spring said the company’s guidance “assumes a certain level of uncertainty” about the economic outlook. He said even Macy’s affluent customer “is just as uncertain and as confused and concerned by what’s transpiring.”

Earlier this spring, Macy’s announced a few key leadership changes — including a new chief financial officer. Macy’s new CFO, Thomas Edwards, will begin on June 22. He previously served as the chief financial officer and chief operating officer of Capri Holdings, the parent company of Michael Kors. He will succeed Mitchell, who is leaving Macy’s.

As of Tuesday’s close, Macy’s shares are down about 29% so far this year. That trails the S&P 500′s nearly 1% gains during the same period. Macy’s stock closed on Tuesday at $12.04 per share, bringing the retailer’s market value to $3.35 billion.

23andMe on Tuesday announced it will voluntarily delist from the Nasdaq and de-register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a release.

The move comes after Regeneron Pharmaceuticals said earlier this month that it will acquire “substantially all” of 23andMe’s assets for $256 million.

The drugmaker came out on top following a bankruptcy auction for 23andMe, a once high-flying genetic testing company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March.

23andMe said it will file a Form 25 Notification of Delisting with the SEC on or around June 6, which would subsequently remove the stock from listing and registering with the Nasdaq.

The company said the Nasdaq had originally informed the company that a Form 25 would be filed in March, but since the exchange has not yet submitted the filing, 23andMe is doing so voluntarily.

23andMe exploded into the mainstream because of its at-home DNA testing kits that allowed customers to examine their genetic profiles. At its peak, the company was valued at around $6 billion.

But after going public via a merger with a special purpose acquisition company in 2021, the company struggled to generate recurring revenue and stand up viable research or therapeutics businesses.

Regeneron’s deal is still subject to approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Pending approval, it’s expected to close in the third quarter of this year.

Walmart agreed to pay a small fine and promised to ensure its third-party resellers are unable to sell realistic looking toy guns to buyers in New York, after state Attorney General Letitia James said Tuesday that the retail giant’s online store shipped them to the state.

The settlement comes nearly a decade after Walmart, Amazon, Sears and other retailers entered into a consent order and judgment with New York’s previous attorney general, in which they agreed to keep toy guns that resemble actual deadly weapons off their shelves statewide and they paid civil penalties that topped $300,000.

The 2015 order was part of a nationwide reckoning over realistic looking toy guns in the wake of the fatal shooting of Tamir Rice, a 12 year-old Cleveland boy who was killed by police in November 2014 while holding a pellet gun.

The New York law bans retailers from selling or shipping toy guns of certain colors — black, dark blue, silver, or aluminum — that look like real weapons.

A realistic-looking toy gun Walmart shipped to New York.New York Attorney General’s Office

Toy guns sold in the state must be “made in bright colors or made entirely of transparent or translucent materials,” with businesses subject to a fine of $1,000 per violation, according to James’ office.

James said on Tuesday that an investigation by her office found that Walmart’s online store had shipped at least nine realistic-looking toy guns sold by third-party sellers to New York City, Westchester County and Western New York.

But the investigation also found that between March 2020 and November 2023, at least 46 imitation weapons that violate New York state law were purchased by consumers in the state through the Walmart.com platform, the settlement revealed.

“Realistic-looking toy guns can put communities in serious danger and that is why they are banned in New York,” James said in a statement.

“Walmart failed to prevent its third-party sellers from selling realistic-looking toy guns to New York addresses, violating our laws and putting people at risk,” she said.

“The ban on realistic-looking toy guns is meant to keep New Yorkers safe and my office will not hesitate to hold any business that violates that law accountable.”

Walmart must pay $14,000 in penalties and $2,000 in fees under the settlement, the AG’s office said.

That total of $16,000 is a tiny fraction of the approximately $49 million in net income Walmart earned on an average day in the most recent financial quarter.

CNBC has requested comment from Walmart, which neither admitted nor denied the findings by James’ office in its investigation.

As part of the settlement, Walmart is required to prohibit third parties from offering for sale or selling any of the imitation guns covered by the state law to buyers in New York.

“Walmart shall terminate the ability of a third party from being able to list and sell toy guns and imitation weapons on Walmart.com when it has determined that a third party has engaged in conduct” that violates that restriction on three separate occasions, the settlement said.

And “Walmart shall implement and maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent such third parties from offering for sale, exposing for sale, or selling Prohibited Items on Walmart.com for importation, holding for sale, or distribution to New York,” the settlement says.

The once-solid relationship between President Donald Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook is breaking down over the idea of a U.S.-made iPhone.

Last week, Trump said he “had a little problem with Tim Cook,” and on Friday, he threatened to slap a 25% tariff on iPhones in a social media post.

Trump is upset with Apple’s plan to source the majority of iPhones sold in the U.S. from its factory partners in India, instead of China. Cook confirmed this plan earlier this month during earnings discussions.

Trump wants Apple to build iPhones for the U.S. market in the U.S. and has continued to pressure the company and Cook.

“I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone’s that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday.

Analysts said it would probably make more sense for Apple to eat the cost rather than move production stateside.

“In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to US,” Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X.

UBS analyst David Vogt said that the potential 25% tariffs were a “jarring headline” but that they would only be a “modest headwind” to Apple’s earnings, dropping annual earnings by 51 cents per share, versus a prior expectation of 34 cents per share under the current tariff landscape.

Experts have long held that a U.S.-made iPhone is impossible at worst and highly expensive at best.

Analysts have said that iPhones made in the U.S. would be much more expensive, CNBC previously reported, with some estimates ranging between $1,500 and $3,500 to buy one at retail. Labor costs would certainly rise.

But it would also be logistically complicated.

Supply chains and factories take years to build out, including installing equipment and staffing up. Parts that Apple imported to the United States for assembly might be subject to tariffs as well.

Apple started manufacturing iPhones in India in 2017 but it was only in recent years that the region was capable of building Apple’s latest devices.

“We believe the concept of Apple producing iPhones in the US is a fairy tale that is not feasible,” wrote Wedbush analyst Dan Ives in a note on Friday.

Other analysts were wary about predicting how Trump’s threat ultimately plays out. Apple might be able to strike a deal with the administration — despite the eroding relationship — or challenge the tariffs in court.

For now, most of Apple’s most important products are exempt from tariffs after Trump gave phones and computers a tariff waiver — even from China — in April, but Apple doesn’t know how the Trump administration’s tariffs will ultimately play out beyond June.

“We’re skeptical” that the 25% tariff will materialize, wrote Wells Fargo analyst Aaron Rakers.

He wrote that Apple could try to preserve its roughly 41% gross margin on iPhones by raising prices in the U.S. by between $100 and $300 per phone.

It’s unclear how Trump intends to target Apple’s India-made iPhones. Rakers wrote that the administration could put specific tariffs on phone imports from India.

Apple’s operations in India continue to expand.

Foxconn, which assembles iPhones for Apple, is building a new $1.5 billion factory in India that could do some iPhone production, the Financial Times reported Thursday.

Apple declined to comment on Trump’s post.

United Airlines reached an “industry-leading” tentative labor deal for its 28,000 flight attendants, their union said Friday.

The deal includes “40% of total economic improvements” in the first year and retroactive pay, a signing bonus, and quality of life improvements, like better scheduling and on-call time, the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA said.

The union did not provide further details about the deal.

United flight attendants have not had a raise since 2020.

The cabin crew members voted last year to authorize the union to strike if a deal wasn’t reached. They had also sought federal mediation in negotiations.

U.S. flight attendants have pushed for wage increases for years after pilots and other work groups secured new labor deals in the wake of the pandemic. United is the last of the major U.S. carriers to get a deal done with its flight attendants.

The deal must still face a vote by flight attendants, and contract language will be finalized in the coming days, United said.

President Donald Trump on Friday cleared the merger of U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel, after the Japanese steelmaker’s previous bid to acquire its U.S. rival had been blocked on national security grounds.

“This will be a planned partnership between United States Steel and Nippon Steel, which will create at least 70,000 jobs, and add $14 Billion Dollars to the U.S. Economy,” Trump said in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

U.S. Steel’s headquarters will remain in Pittsburgh and the bulk of the investment will take place over the next 14 months, the president said. U.S. Steel shares surged more than 20% to close at $52.01 per share after Trump’s announcement.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro applauded the agreement, saying he worked with local, state and federal leaders ‘to press for the best deal to keep U.S. Steel headquartered in Pittsburgh, protect union jobs, and secure the future of steelmaking in Western Pennsylvania.’

In his own statement, Lieutenant Gov. Austin Davis called the announcement ‘promising,’ but added: ‘I want to make sure everyone involved in the deal holds up their end of the bargain. I look forward to seeing the promised investments become a reality and the workers receive everything they’ve fought for.’

President Joe Biden blocked Nippon Steel from purchasing U.S. Steel for $14.9 billion in January, citing national security concerns. Biden said at the time that the acquisition would create a risk to supply chains that are critical for the U.S.

Trump, however, ordered a new review of the proposed acquisition in April, directing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to determine “whether further action in this matter may be appropriate.”

Trump said he would hold a rally at U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh on May 30.

The Federal Trade Commission voted to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the last days of the Biden administration that accused PepsiCo of offering sweetheart pricing to big retailers.

FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson dissented to the suit when it was filed in January, when he was one of the regulator’s commissioners. Now the agency’s leader, Ferguson on Thursday again criticized the case as “a nakedly political effort to commit this administration to pursuing little more than a hunch that Pepsi had violated the law.”

“The FTC’s outstanding staff will instead get back to work protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and competitive business environment,” he said in a statement.

The FTC voted 3-0 to drop the suit. The panel is supposed to be made up of five commissioners, no more than three of whom can share the same political party. But it is currently led by three Republicans after President Donald Trump fired its two Democratic commissioners in March. The two ousted officials have slammed their removals as illegal and are urging a judge to reinstate them.

Pepsi welcomed the FTC decision Thursday. “PepsiCo has always and will continue to provide all customers with fair, competitive, and non-discriminatory pricing, discounts and promotional value,” a spokesperson said in a statement. Beyond its namesake soda, the company makes an array of snacks and other food products, including Doritos, Rold Gold pretzels and Sabra hummus.

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan, who led the commission when the agency brought its case against Pepsi, criticized the move Thursday as “disturbing behavior” by the agency.

“This lawsuit would’ve protected families from paying higher prices at the grocery store and stopped conduct that squeezes small businesses and communities across America,” she wrote on X Thursday evening. “Dismissing it is a gift to giant retailers as they gear up to hike prices.”

The decision comes little more than a week after top-ranking Democrats on Capitol Hill sent a letter to Pepsi demanding more information about its pricing strategy. They sought to revive a Biden-era focus on price-gouging as a driver of inflation, an argument that has taken a back seat to the Trump administration’s attention on purportedly unfair trade arrangements.

But major corporations continue to draw scrutiny from the White House over pricing in other ways. Last weekend, Trump slammed Walmart for warning that it was likely to raise prices to offset the costs of his import taxes, demanding on social media that it “EAT THE TARIFFS.”

In the days since then, other major consumer brands have appeared to tread cautiously around pricing. Target said Wednesday that charging customers more would be its “very last resort.” Home Depot virtually ruled out price hikes this week, and Lowe’s barely mentioned tariff impacts in its Wednesday earnings call at all.

CORRECTION (May 22, 2025, 8:45 p.m. ET): Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article misstated when congressional Democrats sent their letter to Pepsi. It was on May 11, not last weekend.

It took six months, countless hours on hold and intervention from state regulators before Sue Cover says she finally resolved an over $1,000 billing dispute with UnitedHealthcare in 2023.

Cover, 46, said she was overbilled for emergency room visits for her and her son, along with a standard ultrasound. While Cover said her family would eventually have been able to pay the sum, she said it would have been a financial strain on them.

Cover, a San Diego benefits advocate, said she had conversations with UnitedHealthcare that “felt like a circular dance.” Cover said she picked through dense policy language and fielded frequent calls from creditors. She said the experience felt designed to exhaust patients into submission.

“It sometimes took my entire day of just sitting on the phone, being on hold with the hospital or the insurance company,” Cover said.

Cover’s experience is familiar to many Americans. And it embodies rising public furor toward insurers and in particular UnitedHealthcare, the largest private health insurer in the U.S., which has become the poster child for problems with the U.S. insurance industry and the nation’s sprawling health-care system.

The company and other insurers have faced backlash from patients who say they were denied necessary care, providers who say they are buried in red tape and lawmakers who say they are alarmed by its vast influence.

UnitedHealthcare in a statement said it is working with Cover’s provider to “understand the facts of these claims.” The company said it is “unfortunate that CNBC rushed to publish this story without allowing us and the provider adequate time to review.” CNBC provided the company several days to review Cover’s situation before publication.

Andrew Witty, CEO of UnitedHealthcare’s company, UnitedHealth Group, stepped down earlier this month for what the company called “personal reasons.” Witty had led the company through the thick of public and investor blowback. The insurer also pulled its 2025 earnings guidance this month, partly due to rising medical costs, it said.

UnitedHealth Group is by far the biggest company in the insurance industry by market cap, worth nearly $275 billion. It controls an estimated 15% of the U.S. health insurance market, serving more than 29 million Americans, according to a 2024 report from the American Medical Association. Meanwhile, competitors Elevance Health and CVS Health control an estimated 12% of the market each.

It’s no surprise that a company with such a wide reach faces public blowback. But the personal and financial sensitivity of health care makes the venom directed at UnitedHealth unique, some experts told CNBC.

Shares of UnitedHealth Group are down about 40% this year following a string of setbacks for the company, despite a temporary reprieve sparked in part by share purchases by company insiders. In the last month alone, UnitedHealth Group has lost nearly $300 billion of its $600 billion market cap following Witty’s exit, the company’s rough first-quarter earnings and a reported criminal probe into possible Medicare fraud.

In a statement about the investigation, UnitedHealth Group said, “We stand by the integrity of our Medicare Advantage program.”

Over the years, UnitedHealthcare and other insurers have also faced numerous patient and shareholder lawsuits and several other government investigations.

UnitedHealth Group is also contending with the fallout from a February 2024 ransomware attack on Change Healthcare, a subsidiary that processes a significant portion of the country’s medical claims.

More recently, UnitedHealthcare became a symbol for outrage toward insurers following the fatal shooting of its CEO, Brian Thompson, in December. Thompson’s death reignited calls to reform what many advocates and lawmakers say is an opaque industry that puts profits above patients.

The problems go deeper than UnitedHealth Group: Insurers are just one piece of what some experts call a broken U.S. health-care system, where many stakeholders, including drugmakers and pharmacy benefit managers, are trying to balance patient care with making money. Still, experts emphasized that insurers’ cost-cutting tactics — from denying claims to charging higher premiums — can delay or block crucial treatment, leave patients with unexpected bills, they say, or in some cases, even mean the difference between life and death.

In a statement, UnitedHealthcare said it is ″unfortunate that CNBC appears to be drawing broad conclusions based on a small number of anecdotes.”

Frustration with insurers is a symptom of a broader problem: a convoluted health-care system that costs the U.S. more than $4 trillion annually.

U.S. patients spend far more on health care than people anywhere else in the world, yet have the lowest life expectancy among large, wealthy countries, according to the Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group. Over the past five years, U.S. spending on insurance premiums, out-of-pocket co-payments, pharmaceuticals and hospital services has also increased, government data show.

While many developed countries have significant control over costs because they provide universal coverage, the U.S. relies on a patchwork of public and private insurance, often using profit-driven middlemen to manage care, said Howard Lapin, adjunct professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law.

But the biggest driver of U.S. health spending isn’t how much patients use care — it’s prices, said Richard Hirth, professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan.

There is “unbelievable inflation of the prices that are being charged primarily by hospitals, but also drug companies and other providers in the system,” said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

Lapin said factors such as overtreatment, fraud, health-care consolidation and administrative overhead raise costs for payers and providers, who then pass those on through higher prices. U.S. prescription drug prices are also two to three times higher than those in other developed countries, partly due to limited price regulation and pharmaceutical industry practices such as patent extensions.

While patients often blame insurers, the companies are only part of the problem. Some experts argue that eliminating their profits wouldn’t drastically lower U.S. health-care costs.

Still, UnitedHealthcare and other insurers have become easy targets for patient frustration — and not without reason, according to industry experts.

Their for-profit business model centers on managing claims to limit payouts, while complying with regulations and keeping customers content. That often means denying services deemed medically unnecessary, experts said. But at times, insurers reject care that patients need, leaving them without vital treatment or saddled with hefty bills, they added.

Insurers use tools such as deductibles, co-pays, and prior authorization — or requiring approval before certain treatments — to control costs. Industry experts say companies are increasingly relying on artificial intelligence to review claims, and that can sometimes lead to inaccurate denials.

“It’s all part of the same business model — to avoid paying as many claims as possible in a timely fashion,” said Dylan Roby, an affiliate at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

While other private U.S. insurers employ many of the same tactics, UnitedHealth Group appears to have faced the most public backlash due to its size and visibility.

UnitedHealth Group’s market value dwarfs the sub-$100 billion market caps of competitors such as CVS, Cigna and Elevance. UnitedHealth Group booked more than $400 billion in revenue in 2024 alone, up from roughly $100 billion in 2012.

It has expanded into many parts of the health-care system, sparking more criticism of other segments of its business — and the company’s ability to use one unit to benefit another.

UnitedHealth Group grew by buying smaller companies and building them into its growing health-care business. The company now serves nearly 150 million people and controls everything from insurance and medical services to sensitive health-care data.

UnitedHealth Group owns a powerful pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, called Optum Rx, which gives it even more sway over the market.

PBMs act as middlemen, negotiating drug rebates on behalf of insurers, managing lists of drugs covered by health plans and reimbursing pharmacies for prescriptions. But lawmakers and drugmakers accuse them of overcharging plans, underpaying pharmacies and failing to pass savings on to patients.

Owning a PBM gives UnitedHealth Group control over both supply and demand, Corlette said. Its insurance arm influences what care is covered, while Optum Rx determines what drugs are offered and at what price. UnitedHealth Group can maximize profits by steering patients to lower-cost or higher-margin treatments and keeping rebates, she said.

The company’s reach goes even further, Corlette added: Optum Health now employs or affiliates with about 90,000 doctors — nearly 10% of U.S. physicians — allowing UnitedHealth Group to direct patients to its own providers and essentially pay itself for care.

A STAT investigation last year found that UnitedHealth uses its physicians to squeeze profits from patients. But the company in response said its “providers and partners make independent clinical decisions, and we expect them to diagnose and document patient information completely and accurately in compliance with [federal] guidelines.”

Other insurers, such as CVS and Cigna, also own large PBMs and offer care services. But UnitedHealth Group has achieved greater scale and stronger financial returns.

“I think the company is certainly best in class when it comes to insurers, in terms of providing profits for shareholders,” said Roby. “But people on the consumer side probably say otherwise when it comes to their experience.”

No one knows exactly how often private insurers deny claims, since they aren’t generally required to report that data. But some analyses suggest that UnitedHealthcare has rejected care at higher rates than its peers for certain types of plans.

A January report by nonprofit group KFF found that UnitedHealthcare denied 33% of in-network claims across Affordable Care Act plans in 20 states in 2023, one of the highest rates among major insurers. CVS denied 22% of claims across 11 states, and Cigna denied 21% in eight states.

UnitedHealth did not respond to a request for comment on that report. But in December, the company also pushed back on public criticism around its denial rates, saying it approves and pays about 90% of claims upon submission. UnitedHealthcare’s website says the remaining 10% go through an additional review process. The company says its claims approval rate stands at 98% after that review.

In addition, UnitedHealth Group is facing lawsuits over denials. In November, families of two deceased Medicare Advantage patients sued the company and its subsidiary, alleging it used an AI model with a “90% error rate” to deny their claims. UnitedHealth Group has argued it should be dismissed from the case because the families didn’t complete Medicare’s appeals process.

A spokesperson for the company’s subsidiary, NaviHealth, also previously told news outlets that the lawsuit “has no merit” and that the AI tool is used to help providers understand what care a patient may need. It does not help make coverage decisions, which are ultimately based on the terms of a member’s plan and criteria from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, the reported Justice Department criminal probe outlined by the Wall Street Journal targets the company’s Medicare Advantage business practices. In its statement, the company said the Justice Department has not notified it about the reported probe, and called the newspaper’s reporting “deeply irresponsible.”

Inside the company, employees say customers and workers alike face hurdles.

One worker, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, said UnitedHealthcare’s provider website often includes doctors listed as in-network or accepting new patients when they’re not, leading to frequent complaints. Management often replies that it’s too difficult to keep provider statuses up to date, the person said.

UnitedHealthcare told CNBC it believes “maintaining accurate provider directories is a shared responsibility among health plans and providers,” and that it “proactively verifies provider data on a regular basis.” The vast majority of all inaccuracies are due to errors or lack of up-to-date information submitted by providers, the company added.

Emily Baack, a clinical administrative coordinator at UMR, a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare, criticized the length of time it can take a provider to reach a real support worker over the phone who can help assess claims or prior authorization requests. She said the company’s automated phone system can misroute people’s calls or leave them waiting for a support person for over an hour.

But Baack emphasized that similar issues occur across all insurance companies.

She said providers feel compelled to submit unnecessary prior authorization requests out of fear that claims won’t be paid on time. Baack said that leads to a massive backlog of paperwork on her end and delays care for patients.

UnitedHealthcare said prior authorization is “an important checkpoint” that helps ensure members are receiving coverage for safe and effective care.

The company noted it is “continually taking action to simplify and modernize the prior authorization process.” That includes reducing the number of services and procedures that require prior authorization and exempting qualified provider groups from needing to submit prior authorization requests for certain services.

While UnitedHealthcare is not the only insurer facing criticism from patients, Thompson’s killing in December reinforced the company’s unique position in the public eye. Thousands of people took to social media to express outrage toward the company, sharing examples of their own struggles.

The public’s hostile reaction to Thompson’s death did not surprise many industry insiders.

Alicia Graham, co-founder and chief operating officer of the startup Claimable, said Thompson’s murder was “a horrible crime.” She also acknowledged that anger has been bubbling up in various online health communities “for years.”

Claimable is one of several startups trying to address pain points within insurance. It’s not an easy corner of the market to enter, and many of these companies, including Claimable, have been using the AI boom to their advantage.

Claimable, founded in 2024, said it helps patients challenge denials by submitting customized, AI-generated appeal letters on their behalf. The company can submit appeals for conditions such as migraines and certain pediatric and autoimmune diseases, though Graham said it is expanding those offerings quickly.

Many patients aren’t aware that they have a right to appeal, and those who do can spend hours combing through records to draft one, Graham said. If patients are eligible to submit an appeal letter through Claimable, she said they can often do so in minutes. Each appeal costs users $39.95 plus shipping, according to the company’s website.

“A lot of patients are afraid, a lot of patients are frustrated, a lot of patients are confused about the process, so what we’ve tried to do is make it all as easy as possible,” Graham told CNBC.

Some experts have warned about the possibility of health-care “bot wars,” where all parties are using AI to try to gain an edge.

Mike Desjadon, CEO of the startup Anomaly, said he’s concerned about the potential for an AI arms race in the sector, but he remains optimistic. Anomaly, founded in 2020, uses AI to help providers determine what insurers are and aren’t paying for in advance of care, he said.

“I run a technology company and I want to win, and I want our customers to win, and that’s all very true, but at the same time, I’m a citizen and a patient and a husband and a father and a taxpayer, and I just want health care to be rational and be paid for appropriately,” Desjadon told CNBC.

Dr. Jeremy Friese, founder and CEO of the startup Humata Health, said patients tend to interact with insurers only once something goes wrong, which contributes to their frustrations. Requirements such as prior authorization can be a “huge black box” for patients, but they’re also cumbersome for doctors, he said.

Friese said his business was inspired by his work as an interventional radiologist. In 2017, he co-founded a prior-authorization company called Verata Health, which was acquired by the now-defunct health-care AI startup Olive. Friese bought back his technology and founded his latest venture, Humata, in 2023.

Humata uses AI to automate prior authorization for all specialties and payers, Friese said. The company primarily works with medium and large health systems, and it announced a $25 million funding round in June.

“There’s just a lot of pent-up anger and angst, frankly, on all aspects of the health-care ecosystem,” Friese told CNBC.

UnitedHealth Group also set a grim record last year that did little to help public perception. The company’s subsidiary Change Healthcare suffered a cyberattack that affected around 190 million Americans, the largest reported health-care data breach in U.S. history.

Change Healthcare offers payment and revenue cycle management tools, as well as other solutions, such as electronic prescription software. In 2022, it merged with UnitedHealth Group’s Optum unit, which touches more than 100 million patients in the U.S.

In February 2024, a ransomware group called Blackcat breached part of Change Healthcare’s information technology network. UnitedHealth Group isolated and disconnected the affected systems “immediately upon detection” of the threat, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, but the ensuing disruption rocked the health-care sector.

Money stopped flowing while the company’s systems were offline, so a major revenue source for thousands of providers across the U.S. screeched to a halt. Some doctors pulled thousands of dollars out of their personal savings to keep their practices afloat.

“It was and remains the largest and most consequential cyberattack against health care in history,” John Riggi, the national advisor for cybersecurity and risk at the American Hospital Association, told CNBC.

Ransomware is a type of malicious software that blocks victims from accessing their computer files, systems and networks, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ransomware groups such as Blackcat, which are often based in countries such as Russia, China and North Korea, will deploy this software, steal sensitive data and then demand a payment for its return.

Ransomware attacks within the health-care sector have climbed in recent years, in part because patient data is valuable and relatively easy for cybercriminals to exploit, said Steve Cagle, CEO of the health-care cybersecurity and compliance firm Clearwater.

“It’s been a very lucrative and successful business for them,” Cagle told CNBC. “Unfortunately, we’ll continue to see that type of activity until something changes.”

UnitedHealth Group paid the hackers a $22 million ransom to try to protect patients’ data, then-CEO Witty said during a Senate hearing in May 2024.

In March 2024, UnitedHealth Group launched a temporary funding assistance program to help providers with short-term cash flow.

The program got off to a rocky start, several doctors told CNBC, and the initial deposits did not cover their mounting expenses.

UnitedHealth Group ultimately paid out more than $9 billion to providers in 2024, according to the company’s fourth-quarter earnings report in January.

Witty said in his congressional testimony that providers would only be required to repay the loans when “they, not me, but they confirm that their cash flow is normalized.”

Almost a year later, however, the company is aggressively going after borrowers, demanding they “immediately repay” their outstanding balances, according to documents viewed by CNBC and providers who received funding. Some groups have been asked to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of days, according to documents viewed by CNBC.

A spokesperson for Change Healthcare confirmed to CNBC in April that the company has started recouping the loans.

″We continue to work with providers on repayment and other options, and continue to reach out to those providers that have not been responsive to previous calls or email requests for more information,” the spokesperson said.

The pressure for repayment drew more ire toward UnitedHealth Group on social media, and some providers told CNBC that dealing with the company was a “very frustrating experience.”

The vast majority of Change Healthcare’s services have been restored over the last year, but three products are still listed as “partial service available,” according to UnitedHealth’s cyberattack response website.

Witty’s departure and the company’s warning about elevated medical costs, combined with the fallout from Thompson’s murder and the Change Healthcare cyberattack, could mean UnitedHealth faces an uphill battle.

UnitedHealth Group appears to be trying to regain the public’s trust. For example, Optum Rx in March announced plans to eliminate prior authorizations on dozens of drugs, easing a pain point for physicians and patients.

But policy changes at UnitedHealth Group and other insurers may not drastically improve care for patients, health insurance industry experts previously told CNBC.

They said there will need to be structural changes to the entire insurance industry, which will require legislation that may not be high on the priority list for the closely divided Congress.

The spotlight on UnitedHealth Group may only grow brighter in the coming months. The trial date for Luigi Mangione, the man facing federal stalking and murder charges in connection with Thompson’s shooting, is expected to be set in December. Mangione has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

As Burger King enters the next phase of its turnaround efforts, the fast-food chain is trying to lure families back to its restaurants with colored Whopper buns and kid-friendly movie partnerships.

Starting Tuesday, the Restaurant Brands International chain will sell new menu items inspired by the “live action” remake of “How to Train Your Dragon.” The collaboration is more than just a one-time partnership — it’s part of Burger King’s broader strategy to lift U.S. sales.

“Where we’re really starting to lean in now that we’ve made some progress in both operations and in our restaurants is on a family-first marketing strategy,” Burger King U.S. and Canada President Tom Curtis told CNBC.

Burger King’s U.S. business has been in turnaround mode for more than 2½ years. After falling behind burger rivals McDonald’s and Wendy’s, the company announced plans to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a comeback strategy to renovate its restaurants, improve its operations and spend on advertising. The chain even bought its largest U.S. franchisee with the goal of accelerating its restaurant remodels.

“We’re finding that there will be chapters to this as we go through time, and right now is this family strategy chapter, where we’ve done enough work and transformed our restaurant operations to the extent that we’re proud of,” Curtis said. “We’re inviting families back in, and we’re finding that we’re getting better retention when they do come back in.”

Curtis said focusing on families gives Burger King the opportunity to attract customers across age cohorts, from millennials to Generation Alpha, which is roughly defined as people born between 2010 and 2025. Plus, parents’ avid use of social media means that word spreads quickly, giving the approach a leg up compared with targeting a single demographic that isn’t as enthusiastic online.

The limited-time themed menu items include the Dragon Flame-Grilled Whopper, with a red and orange marbled bun; Fiery Dragon Mozzarella Fries, made with Calabrian chili pepper breading; Soaring Strawberry Lemonade; and the Viking’s Chocolate Sundae, with Hershey’s syrup and black and green cookie crumbles.

Movie collaborations aren’t anything new for fast food — or Burger King. It was one of the first fast-food chains to lean into movie tie-ins. In 1977, the chain sold “Star Wars” drinking glasses ahead of the film’s release.

McDonald’s wasn’t far behind, following with a Star Trek-themed Happy Meal two years later, kicking off decades of movie, TV and toy tie-ins aimed at kids. More recently, the Golden Arches’ collaboration with “A Minecraft Movie” across more than 100 markets sold out within two weeks in the U.S., about half the time earmarked for the promotion.

In Burger King’s more recent past, under Curtis’ leadership, the chain has had two major partnerships: one with “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” two years ago and another with the Addams Family franchise, timed for Halloween last year.

Both of those menus featured Whoppers with thematic, colored buns, dyed using natural colorants, like beet juice or ube.

“Not having artificial dyes and colors is something that’s been important to us for a while,” Curtis said.

Burger King use of natural dyes comes as artificial food dyes have come under fire from health-concerned parents. Following a push from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Food and Drug Administration recently announced plans to phase out the use of petroleum-based synthetic dyes in food and drinks.

The two previous collaborations also were Burger King’s top-selling Whopper innovations, based on the number sold, according to Curtis.

“What we found in the Addams Family promotion specifically was, as we dug into the property, traffic was fairly flat, but sales were up,” he said, attributing the sales growth to families, which have a higher average check than a solo diner or a couple.

The expected sales lift from the “How to Train Your Dragon” menu comes at a crucial time for Burger King.

In its most recent quarter, the company’s comeback stumbled. The chain’s U.S. same-store sales slid 1.1%, mirroring an industrywide slump as fears about the economy and bad weather kept diners at home.

But Curtis is confident that Burger King is on the right track, pointing to the chain’s relative outperformance compared with its two biggest competitors: McDonald’s and Wendy’s.

“I know that they’re scrambling, and sometimes, frankly, copying some of the things that we do, which, you know, plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery,” he said. “When we see them doing that, it gives us more conviction to stay on course.”

When the live-action version of “How to Train Your Dragon” hits theaters on June 13, it’s expected to be one of the summer’s big blockbusters. After all, the animated trilogy has grossed more than $1.6 billion worldwide.

Burger King has similar expectations for its menu tie-in.

The past success of the Spider-Verse and Addams Family menu items pushed Burger King to “dramatically” up its forecast for the “How to Train Your Dragon” menu, according to Curtis. And Burger King is also planning on changing its advertising strategy, which could drastically increase demand for the Dragon Flamed-Grilled Whoppers.

“In the past, we would just kind of associate ourselves with the movie property, but we wouldn’t necessarily advertise the association — you’d just see it and hear about it in social media,” Curtis said.

The promotion is supposed to run through early July, but in case Burger King burns through its supply in just three weeks, the chain is prepared to monitor what locations have run out of the menu items. That’s a lesson it learned during its Spider-Verse promotion, when it had to launch a tracker on its website to help customers find the coveted Whopper.

As it learns from every experience, Burger King is planning to dive deeper into franchise partnerships, betting that the extra effort will drive long-term loyalty for the brand.

“We’re doing a couple more of them than we have in the past,” Curtis said. “We’ve got one toward the end of the year that we’re very, very excited about … and we’re getting some lined up for next year as well. In every one of those, we’ll go all in.”

Disclosure: Comcast owns CNBC and Universal Studios, the producer and distributor of “How to Train Your Dragon.”