Cities in the Midwest tend to have the lowest monthly costs

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• San Jose tops the list as the most expensive U.S. city for household bills, with residents paying a median of $3,523 per month.

• Cleveland ranks lowest, where households spend just $1,606 monthly22% below the national median.

• Nationwide, bills average $2,058 per month, making up the single largest category of household expenses.

A new analysis of household spending shows that where Americans live has a dramatic impact on how much they pay in recurring bills. The doxoINSIGHTS 50 Largest U.S. Cities Household Spend Report 2025 examined actual bill payment data from millions of households, covering more than 97% of U.S. zip codes.

The findings reveal a stark contrast: residents of San Jose, Calif., face the nations steepest household costs at a median of $3,523 per month a staggering 71% above the U.S. median while households in Cleveland, Ohio, pay just $1,606 per month, the lowest among major cities.

While discussions about cost of living often focus on housing prices, doxo emphasizes that household bills are the largest recurring expense for families, exceeding mortgage or rent, insurance, utilities, internet, and even mobile phones.

Bills are the largest category of household spending, yet their impact on the cost of living is often overlooked, said Jaimie Sheridan, head of INSIGHTS at doxo. This level of transparency provides actionable insights based on actual paymentsnot estimateshelping consumers improve their financial well-being and businesses better understand their customers economic realities.

Most and least expensive cities

According to the report, California dominates the high-cost list, with San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles joining San Jose as expensive when it comes to household bills. Along with Cleveland, cities such as Detroit, Dayton, Saint Louis, and Indianapolis all appear on the list of least expensive places to manage monthly expenses.

The report underscores how these differences can shape consumer decisions:

• Financial health Families can benchmark their bills against local and national medians to spot savings opportunities.

• Provider evaluation Bill-by-bill comparisons reveal where certain services may be disproportionately expensive.

• Relocation considerations For those weighing a move, understanding how bills contribute to overall living costs provides a more realistic financial picture.

With U.S. households spending a median of $24,695 annually on bills, the study offers a rare glimpse into the true day-to-day costs of American life, beyond the price tag of housing alone.

Researchers explored how caffeine can quietly reduce the power of some antibiotics by changing how bacteria let them in

• Everyday substances, including caffeine, can trigger changes in bacteria like E. coli that make antibiotics less effective.

• Caffeine activates a regulatory path involving a bacterial protein called Rob, leading to less porin channels, which antibiotics use to enter the cell.

• The weakening effect depends on the antibiotic, the bacterial species, and specific genes; in Salmonella, for example, caffeine didnt reduce antibiotic effectiveness the same way.

We all know caffeine wakes us up, but what if that same caffeine could interfere with antibiotics we need?

A new study from researchers in Germany has found that caffeine (and other common chemicals) can affect how bacteria respond to certain antibiotics.

The kicker: its not because caffeine kills bacteria or is antibacterial itself, but because it alters the way bacteria regulate what they let in and push out. In some cases, that can make antibiotics less able to do their job.

Our data show that several substances can subtly but systematically influence gene regulation in bacteria, researcher Christoph Binsfeld, said in a news release.

The study

To figure out how everyday substances might change the way bacteria react to antibiotics, researchers ran a kind of stress test on E. coli, a common gut bacterium.

They exposed the bacteria to 94 different chemicals including antibiotics, prescription drugs, and food-related compounds like caffeine and watched how the bacteria responded.

Instead of just looking to see whether the bacteria grew or died, the team zoomed in on the gates and pumps in the bacterial cell wall. These are the entry and exit points that antibiotics use to get inside or get pushed back out. By using a glowing marker system, the scientists could track whether these gates opened wider, closed tighter, or stayed the same when exposed to each chemical.

They also tested slightly altered versions of E. coli that were missing certain control switches. This helped them pin down exactly which internal regulators were responsible for the bacterias reactions.

The results

Caffeine stood out as one of the surprising players. On its own, caffeine didnt harm the bacteria. But when it was present, it flipped on a genetic switch that told the bacteria to close some of its entry gates specifically a channel called OmpF, which many antibiotics rely on to slip inside.

With fewer gates open, antibiotics like amoxicillin and ciprofloxacin couldnt get in as easily. That meant it took higher doses of those antibiotics to slow the bacteria down. In fact, in some tests, E. coli became up to 40% harder to stop when caffeine was added.

The effect wasnt universal, though. It depended on the specific bacteria and the drug. For instance, when the same tests were run on Salmonella, caffeine didnt have the same impact. This shows that caffeine isnt automatically a problem with all antibiotics, but it highlights how even common, everyday substances can sometimes tip the balance in bacterias favor.

Such fundamental research into the effect of substances consumed on a daily basis underscores the vital role of science in understanding and resolving real-world problems, President Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. (Dshisha) Karla Pollmann said in the news release.

Scammers post phony reviews and shake down business owners who want them removed

• Scammers demand payments from business owners to remove 1-star reviews

• Victims report losing hundreds of dollars and severe hits to online ratings

• Watchdogs say Google isnt doing enough to protect small businesses

Contractors, movers and roofers among targets

Small business owners are being targeted by scam artists who flood Google Maps and other sites with phony false reviews and then extort the business owner, offering to remove the reviews for a price. In a New York Times report, Los Angeles contractor Natalia Piper told of gettinga WhatsApp message from a number in Pakistan this summer. It warned that someone had ordered 20 negative reviews of her business. Soon after, her companys once-perfect 5-star Google rating plunged to 3.6, costing her customers and income.

Piper, like other small business owners, was asked to pay to have the fake reviews removed. She handed over $250 in two separate payments before realizing the cycle would not stop. It took me eight years to get my reputation in the market, and one guy can damage it in one day, she said.

A system ripe for abuse

The scam works by flooding small, review-dependent businesses from moving companies to roofers and appliance repair services with phony one-star Google ratings. The attackers then demand money to delete the posts. Industry watchdog Fake Review Watch has tracked more than 150 businesses worldwide targeted in this way.

Businesses are being extorted and Google isnt doing enough about it, said founder Kay Dean in theTimes report, a former federal criminal investigator. She said scammers use AI tools to churn out convincing reviews at scale, making moderation even harder.

Google under scrutiny

Google, like Amazon and Yelp, removes millions of fake reviews each year but admits many slip through. In a statement, the company said it blocks fraudulent content before it appears in most cases and has suspended more than 900,000 accounts for violations. Officials promised a new tool to help businesses report when they are being targeted, but gave no timeline.

Victims say getting help from the tech giant is nearly impossible. Piper said she tried multiple channels even through Googles advertising department, where she spends thousands with little success.

Real losses for small firms

In Georgia, moving company owner Nick Betourney also saw his hard-won 5-star rating threatened. He received a WhatsApp note from a man using the name Rashid Ghallu, who later admitted to The New York Times that he sells negative Google reviews for $100 per batch of 20.

The scammers reviews werent generic complaints, Betourney said, but crazy elaborate stuff describing boxes smashed in front of customers. Google eventually removed some of the fakes, but new ones quickly appeared.

Limited protections despite new rules

The Federal Trade Commission in 2024 introduced rules targeting businesses that buy fake positive reviews, but they dont apply to platforms like Google or to scammers overseas. Under federal law, platforms enjoy broad protections for third-party content, leaving small businesses vulnerable.

For now, some owners are relying on their own fixes. Piper said removing her cellphone number from her online listings finally stopped the WhatsApp harassment. But she fears countless other small firms may not be as lucky.

Business owners: Tips for spotting and reporting fake reviews

• Watch for sudden rating drops A cluster of 1-star reviews appearing at once is a red flag.

• Look at reviewer profiles Fake reviewers often have no profile photo, few past reviews, or reviews scattered across unrelated industries and locations.

• Check for copy-and-paste language Repeated phrases or nearly identical wording across multiple reviews may indicate fraud.

• Report suspicious reviews to Google Use the Report review option directly in Google Maps; provide details explaining why its fake.

• Keep records Save screenshots of reviews and any related messages (emails, texts, WhatsApp) to document harassment or extortion attempts.

• Avoid paying scammers Payment rarely stops the attacks and can invite more.

Need help? The FTC accepts complaints about online at reportfraud.ftc.gov.

Regulators demand answers on privacy, disclosures, and safeguards

• The FTC has launched a formal study asking several AIchatbot companies about how they handle data, safety, and children when these bots act like companions.

• Firms under scrutiny include big names like Meta, OpenAI, Instagram, X.AI, Snap, and Alphabet. They must explain how they test negative impacts on users and how they inform users or parents.

• The focus is especially on potential risks to children and teens: how these bots are used, what protections are in place, and whether age restrictions, privacy rules, or disclosures are being followed.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is taking a closer look at AI chatbots that are built to mimic humans ones that might feel like friends or confidants.

These bots use generative AI to carry on conversations that seem warm, emotional, or caring. Because of this, theres concern that people (especially kids and teens) might start trusting them more than they should.

The FTC is using whats called 6(b) orders tools that let the agency gather detailed information, not as part of a particular legal case but as a broad study. Its asking seven major companies to provide data and explanations, including Alphabet (Googles parent), Meta, OpenAI, Snap, Instagram, Character Technologies, and X.AI.

Protecting kids online is a top priority for the Trump-Vance FTC, and so is fostering innovation in critical sectors of our economy, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, said in a news release.

As AI technologies evolve, it is important to consider the effects chatbots can have on children, while also ensuring that the United States maintains its role as a global leader in this new and exciting industry. The study were launching today will help us better understand how AI firms are developing their products and the steps they are taking to protect children.

What consumers should pay attention to

Heres what this means for you especially if you or someone in your family uses chatbots that feel like companions:

1. Safety for Kids & Teens. The FTC wants to know what companies are doing before and after releasing these bots to detect harms. That includes emotional or psychological harm, misinformation, manipulation, or simply users relying too much on a bot instead of human help.

2. Transparency & Disclosures. Are parents and users being told what these bots can (and cant) do? Do people know how their data is stored, whether chats are shared, and how the bot was trained? The FTC specifically wants info on how companies disclose things like audience, data collection, risks, and how bots are advertised.

3. Privacy & Data Handling. When you talk to a chatbot, that conversation might be data used for training, saved, or shared. The FTC is asking companies to detail how they handle your inputs (what you say), outputs (what the bot says back), and whether they share your info with others. For children under the law, there are extra rules (e.g. Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA) that protect their data.

4. Age Limits, Terms & Moderation. How do companies enforce rules about who can use the bots? If there are age limits, are they checked and enforced? What about moderation of content or behavior when things go wrong? The FTC wants to see how policies are enforced after the product is live.

Why it matters

Even if a product seems harmless or fun, when it simulates emotions or friendship, it can influence how people think, feel, and act. Children and teens are less experienced with boundaries, with recognizing risk, or distinguishing whats real vs. simulated relationships. Knowing that companies are being asked to show what safeguards are in place means theres hope for stronger protections.

I have been concerned by reports that AI chatbots can engage in alarming interactions with young users, as well as reports suggesting that companies offering generative AI companion chatbots might have been warned by their own employees that they were deploying the chatbots without doing enough to protect young users, FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak said in a statement.

As use of AI companion chatbots continues to increase, I look forward to receiving and reviewing responses to the Section 6(b) orders we are issuing today.