How to Protect Yourself from a Smartphone Scam

(Feature Impact) The first sign is unexpectedly losing access to your cell phone. Soon after, when you connect to Wi-Fi, the gravity of the situation sinks in: a criminal has gained access to your cell phone number and is trying to siphon money from your credit cards and bank accounts.

The scam is called SIM swapping, or SIM hijacking, and it’s a concern for law enforcement in the United States and abroad as more than 5,000 people have reported SIM swapping scams to the FBI since 2022. Older adults, caregivers and families can benefit from understanding the warning signs of SIM swapping and taking simple security steps to prevent it from happening.

How SIM swapping works

A SIM card, or its digital version known as an eSIM, helps connect a phone number to a carrier network. In a SIM swapping scam, a criminal collects basic information about their victim, such as their name, birthdate and address, to try to move the victim’s phone number to a SIM card or eSIM profile the criminal controls.

Once complete, the scammer gains access to accounts you may be logged into on your phone, such as bank accounts or credit card apps, without touching your phone or being near you.

How to protect yourself from SIM swapping scams

Preparation is the best protection against SIM swapping. Cell phone users should use strong, unique passwords for each online account – password managers are a helpful tool in creating complex and randomized passwords. Use two-factor authentication where it’s offered; this adds an extra layer of security when accessing sensitive accounts.

Next, consumers should protect personal information they share online, whether on social media or in texts or emails asking for identifying data, such as PIN numbers, birthdates or one-time security codes. Be wary of anyone pushing you to share personal information, particularly if they’re pushy with their request or make it sound urgent.

Check your mobile carrier to see if it offers SIM protection. For example, Verizon customers can toggle on a protection feature on the carrier’s website or app to lock lines on their account to help prevent SIM changes.

If you get an unprompted notification that your SIM has been changed, or otherwise suspect you’ve been targeted in a SIM swapping scam, contact your banks immediately and have them freeze your accounts, including ones the criminals may not have targeted yet. Next, work with your cell phone provider to help regain access to your mobile device. If you’re able, share as much information as possible with law enforcement so they can investigate, or at least document trends, in how often this scam occurs.

To find more advice to protect against smartphone scams, visit Verizon.com.

Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

Advertisement

SOURCE:

Verizon

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!

FOX Corporation says it has reached a definitive agreement to acquire Roku in a cash-and-stock deal valued at $160 per share, putting Roku at roughly $22 billion in enterprise value. On paper, it’s a classic “content meets platform” move: FOX brings premium live programming (sports, news, entertainment) and Tubi, while Roku brings the connected TV operating system, The Roku Channel, and a direct relationship with more than 100 million streaming households.

For STM Daily News readers, the big question isn’t the stock math—it’s the practical one: what changes for people who already own a Roku device or use Roku’s service? Here’s what the companies are saying, what’s likely, and what to watch as the deal heads toward a targeted close in the first half of 2027.

The headline: FOX wants the “front door” to streaming

Roku isn’t just a streaming stick. It’s the home screen millions of people see every day—the place where apps are discovered, promoted, and monetized. FOX is betting that pairing its live content (especially sports and news) with Roku’s platform and ad tech creates a scaled media-and-technology business with stronger reach and advertising power.

FOX and Roku also emphasized that Roku will continue operating as an “open, partner-friendly platform,”and that FOX content will remain widely distributed. That’s an important promise—because Roku’s value depends on being a neutral platform that works with everyone.

What this could mean for Roku owners (the consumer view)

1) Your Roku device should keep working—no “sudden shutdown” expected

Nothing in the announcement suggests existing Roku players or Roku TVs will stop functioning. In most acquisitions like this, the priority is stability: keep devices running, keep accounts intact, keep app availability broad. Roku’s installed base is the asset.

What to watch for: changes to software update cadence, account terms, or how the home screen is organized.

2) Expect tighter FOX + Roku integration (and more promotion)

If FOX owns Roku, it can promote FOX properties more aggressively across the Roku interface—think:

• More prominent placement for Tubi and The Roku Channel
• Faster paths to live FOX events (sports, breaking news)
• Bundled sign-ups or simplified authentication

This could be convenient for viewers who already watch FOX content. It could also feel like “more FOX everywhere” if the home screen starts prioritizing FOX-owned services.

What to watch for: whether Roku’s home screen recommendations become noticeably more FOX-heavy.

3) Advertising could get smarter—and more intense

Both companies highlighted reach, engagement, and monetization. Roku’s first-party data and ad platform are a major part of the appeal. FOX’s live sports and news are premium ad environments. Put together, the combined company will likely push for:

• More advanced ad targeting and measurement across streaming
• More ad inventory tied to live events
• Stronger cross-promotion between linear TV and streaming

What to watch for: ad load (how many ads you see), frequency (how often you see the same ad), and new ad formats.

4) The Roku Channel and Tubi could become a bigger “free TV” hub

Roku already operates The Roku Channel, and FOX owns Tubi—two major free, ad-supported streaming services (FAST). A combined strategy could mean:

• More shared content pipelines
• Expanded live channels
• A clearer “free streaming” destination inside the Roku ecosystem

What to watch for: whether the services stay distinct or begin to merge features, libraries, or branding.

5) App availability is the make-or-break issue

Roku’s strength comes from being the platform where all the major services want to be. If partners believe the platform is no longer neutral, negotiations can get tense.

Advertisement

FOX and Roku say they intend to keep Roku open and partner-friendly. That’s a signal to streaming services, device makers, and advertisers: “we’re not closing the ecosystem.”

What to watch for: any public disputes over app placement, revenue share, data access, or carriage terms.

What the deal terms tell us (and why it matters)

FOX says it expects the deal to be accretive to free cash flow per share by the second full year after closing and targets about $400 million in run-rate cost synergies, with additional revenue upside. Translation: there will be pressure to streamline operations and increase monetization.

FOX also plans to fund the cash portion with new debt and cash on hand, with a pro forma net leverage expectation of about 2.8x (including partial credit for synergies). That kind of financing structure typically increases the importance of predictable cash generation—often from advertising and platform economics.

Timeline: nothing changes overnight

The transaction still needs shareholder approvals and U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory approvals, and the companies expect to close in the first half of 2027. That means the Roku experience you have today is likely to remain largely the same in the near term.

Bottom line: convenience vs. control

For consumers, this deal is a tug-of-war between two outcomes:

• Convenience: easier access to FOX content, stronger free streaming options, and a more integrated experience.
• Control: more aggressive promotion, more advertising optimization, and potential shifts in platform neutrality.

If you’re a Roku owner, the best move right now is simple: keep an eye on interface changes and terms-of-service updates as the deal progresses. The “what to watch for” items above will be the early signals of whether this becomes a viewer-friendly upgrade—or a more tightly monetized streaming front door.

What to watch for next

• Regulatory review updates and any conditions attached to approval
• How FOX positions Tubi vs. The Roku Channel
• Any changes to Roku’s partner relationships (major app negotiations)
• New product announcements tied to live sports/news streaming

Source (press release):
Fox Corporation via PRNewswire — “FOX CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE ROKU, INC.” (June 15, 2026)

Related external links (as referenced in the release):

• SEC filings portal: https://www.sec.gov
• FOX Investor Relations: https://investor.foxcorporation.com/
• Roku Investor Relations: https://www.roku.com/investor
• Fox Corporation (company site): https://www.foxcorporation.com/

STM Daily News will continue tracking what this acquisition means for cord-cutters, connected TV users, and the future of streaming discovery.

Advertisement

Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis

The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.

The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.

Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.

That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.

Putting carmakers in a bind

The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.

Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.

The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.

The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.

For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.

Advertisement

A slower roll

The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.

The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.

Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.

But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.

Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.

But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.

The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.

This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.

Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.

Advertisement