Connect with us

Business

I’m a divorce lawyer who’s been divorced. Here’s the truth no one tells you about marriage and prenups

Published

on



As a family law attorney, I’ve walked countless clients through divorce. I knew better than most how emotionally and financially draining it can be. That’s why, when I got married, I did everything I could to prepare, including a prenup.

Years later, I went through my own divorce. It was everything I was “taught” in law school.

I said to myself, “you know what to do, you’ve helped so many clients navigate this before.” 

But just like being in a car accident, you don’t really understand the devastation it has on your life, regardless of how many times you’ve seen it in movies, put on your seat belt and reviewed your car insurance policy, until it happens to you.

Even with the “perfect” prenup, no one is immune from the emotional turbulence of ending a marriage. But because we had those difficult conversations up front, the process was clearer, calmer, and far more manageable than it might have been otherwise. That preparation was a gift — not just for me, but for my daughter and my ex-husband as well.

It’s what reinforced my conviction to build HelloPrenup: the first online prenup platform to make prenups fast, affordable, and accessible. I wanted couples everywhere to have the same chance to enter marriage with peace of mind, without unnecessary cost or conflict no matter what life brings their way. But most importantly — create a legally guided space where the tough conversations can be had so the longevity and health of the marriage is prioritized, while a plan is put in place.

100% of marriages end — and most endings are painful

Besides taxes and change, there’s one additional guarantee in life: all marriages will end — either in death at 60% or divorce at 40%. Yet only 33% have an estate plan in place in the event of death, and worse, only 15% have a prenup in the event of a divorce. This means the majority of marriages are vulnerable to the emotional, financial, & burdening experiences while they are grieving one of the most devastating losses they will ever go through. 

Without a prenup, couples are forced to rely on the government during one of the most vulnerable times in their lives, often facing unnecessary financial strain while navigating outdated, bloated systems. According to the 2022 Legal Services Corporation Justice Gap Report, 92% of low-income Americans receive little or no legal help in serious civil matters, including family law. When people represent themselves, even a small mistake can cost them custody, property, or long-term financial stability. Family law is complex — even for trained professionals — yet most families are left to face it alone, a reality that undermines the very principles of our justice system.

With most unprotected with a plan, I’m on a mission to help other couples build a strong foundation through a more cost-effective & accessible way that prepares couples for marriage through online prenuptial agreements. 

After being the first legaltech company on Shark Tank and with the support of investors like Kevin O’Leary and Nirav Tolia, we’ve helped over 100,000 people have important conversations up front without the time and expense of an attorney through the benefits of a prenup.

No longer reserved for the wealthy elite, prenups are becoming standard among Millennials and GenZ. 75% of HelloPrenup users are under age 40, with a median net worth of just $78,000. These aren’t trust-fund babies — they’re everyday young professionals who have seen firsthand the damage divorce can do. They know marriage isn’t just about love; it’s also a binding financial contract that can be expensive, adversarial and devastating to get out of if things go wrong. 

Beyond protecting wealth, prenups protect your marriage.

Prenups were once seen as a bad omen, signaling a lack of commitment. In reality, they work more like preventative medicine. Prenups help couples address the strongest predictors of divorce before they become toxic to ensure the health and longevity of the marriage.

By openly discussing these predictors and expectations at the start, couples strengthen their relationship instead of waiting until it’s “sick” with conflict. These candid and thoughtful conversations about potential scenarios and solutions allow partners to get on the same page and build healthy habits for the long run that can ultimately avoid the detriments of a divorce.

You’ve planned the perfect wedding. But have you planned for a successful marriage?

Millennials and GenZ are challenging societal norms based on lessons learned from previous generations. They’re getting married later (average age of a HelloPrenup user is 37, ten years older than the average age a decade ago), swapping lavish ceremonies for house down payments, and having pets and plants instead of children. 

These couples are also bringing more complex situations to the relationship than 20 years ago. Either party could own homes, businesses, retirement accounts, or side hustles before getting married. Many carry student loans or other debt, and 75% expect to inherit sizable sums from their parents as part of the Great Wealth Transfer.

One in 10 HelloPrenup users has been divorced in the past, and the remaining likely know someone who has been through it. With divorce rates at a staggering high of 50%, and second marriages hovering around 70%, there is more incentive than ever to plan in advance.

Absent a prenup, couples are at the mercy of their state’s laws to dictate the terms of the divorce. The last thing most want is to trust their finances to the state. Traditional family law can be archaic, inconsistent and not aligned with the realities of modern relationships. They were designed for heterosexual couples, where only the husband works, while the wife raises the family. Today, more women are the primary breadwinners, and their male counterparts are stepping into domestic roles to support the family. 

Infidelity & other important conversations

Infidelity is one of the most common topics addressed in a prenup: 36% of couples choose to include an infidelity clause, a number that has grown 3% since February of 2025.

But infidelity clauses aren’t just about establishing penalties for cheating – they are about setting expectations. There are infinite ways a couple might define infidelity: is it sliding into someone’s DMs on social media, engaging in intercourse, or somewhere in between? Prenups force couples to agree on that definition, perhaps even setting terms for an open marriage or other relationship boundaries. And it holds both parties accountable: the median damage amount for infidelity is $50,000, and with a median net worth of $233,000, an affair puts almost 25% of that at stake.

Modern prenups can also cover:

Fertility: One in six people are affected by infertility. 10% of HelloPrenup couples add an embryo clause in their prenup to establish terms for reproductive property. This is increasingly important as some state laws lean toward assigning embryos personhood status. A reproductive clause, including disposition terms, can protect your reproductive future, ensure that the ability to have children is on the couple’s terms, and doesn’t add pressure to find a partner while building a career.

Pets: One in three couples include a pet clause spelling out custody, visitation terms, how expenses like vet bills and pet insurance will be handled, and who has final say in care decisions.

Alimony/Spousal Support: If one partner sacrifices career advancement to raise children or support the other’s business or career, a prenup can ensure that any alimony/spousal support paid is sufficient and in line with the partner’s expectations and standard of living during the marriage. 

Debt protection: If one party brings debt to the relationship or they accrue it during the marriage by going back to school, starting a business, or gambling, state law may deem all debt to be shared debt, making both individuals responsible. A prenup lets couples determine how it should be handled (95% opt to keep debt separate).  

Affordable prenups: The great equalizer

By formalizing expectations (financial, behavioral, and emotional), an affordable prenup is the olive branch that allows modern couples to enjoy the benefits of a committed marriage while ensuring they’re not financially or emotionally wiped out in the event of a dissolution. 

They empower couples to protect their rights, maintain independence, and avoid outdated laws. Regardless of gender, wealth, or background, prenups offer empowerment, fairness, and peace of mind, allowing couples to focus on love and building their future together. And most importantly — they create a plan for the inevitable fact that every marriage will end, it’s just a matter of how and if a couple is prepared or not.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.