A report from The Associated Press found that the hearing aid industry is making a $12 billion loss annually and that it could be losing as much as $4 billion in 2019 alone.

The hearing aid business in particular has seen a lot of decline due to the increasing number of hearing aids that are no longer covered by insurance.

A 2015 report by the Institute for Policy Studies found that hearing aids are the number one ear-witness protection device in use in the United States.

This is partly due to technology, but also due to consumer behavior.

A 2017 study by the National Hearing Alliance found that 92 percent of Americans who have a hearing aid reported that they used it for a purpose other than protecting their hearing.

This was despite the fact that the Hearing Act of 1996 states that all persons should have the opportunity to have their own ear protection device that protects them from the elements and from noise.

The Hearing Act does not protect people from having their hearing damaged due to their own hearing loss.

In addition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Hospital Association have stated that they are concerned that a “no-win” scenario where people cannot have hearing aids while they are receiving medical treatment is possible due to an outdated and inadequate law that protects consumers and does not adequately protect consumers.

In 2015, the Federal Trade Commission proposed to eliminate the rule that protects people with hearing loss from being denied the right to use hearing aids and instead allow them to use a hearing protection device if the device is a “standard hearing aid” (a hearing aid with an electronic display).

The FTC’s proposal would have prevented the government from requiring hearing aids to be covered under insurance plans.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the law, stating that “a hearing protection hearing aid that provides an alternative means of hearing must be reasonably equivalent to a hearing loss protection device” and that “it is not unreasonable to conclude that hearing aid coverage in the ordinary meaning of the term is adequate for purposes of the rule.”