Consumer News: What $150 oil could mean for gasoline and diesel prices

The settlement stems from a 2022 recall

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Abbott Laboratories has agreed to pay nearly $385 million to settle government allegations involving the manufacture of powdered infant formula and nutritional products.

• The Justice Department alleged that conditions at Abbotts Michigan plant put formula at an unacceptable risk of bacterial contamination.

• The settlement includes no finding of liability. Abbott says testing found no Cronobacter sakazakii in unopened formula from the homes of infants investigated during the 2022 recall.

Abbott Laboratories has agreed to pay $384,999,040 to resolve allegations that it supplied powdered infant formula and nutritional products to government programs despite manufacturing conditions that failed to meet safety requirements.

The Justice Department said the allegations cover products made at Abbott facilities in Sturgis, Michigan, and Casa Grande, Arizona, between 2018 and 2022. The civil case focused on purchases made through programs including WIC, which helps eligible families buy infant formula, and Medicaid.

According to the governments complaint, roof leaks at the Sturgis plant allowed water to drip over equipment, while cracks and pits in equipment used to turn liquid formula into powder increased the risk of microorganisms growing. Prosecutors also alleged that Abbott failed to adequately investigate potential contamination and withheld some test results from the Food and Drug Administration.

The case stems from the period surrounding Abbotts 2022 recall of certain Similac, Alimentum and EleCare powdered formulas. The recall and temporary closure of the Sturgis plant contributed to a nationwide formula shortage.

The settlement resolves claims that Abbott caused improper charges to be submitted to government programs for products made under those conditions. About $348.7 million will go to the federal government and $36.3 million to certain states, according to the Justice Department.

The companys position

In its statement, Abbott emphasized that the settlement does not establish fault or liability. The company said government testing of unopened formula from the homes of infants investigated at the time of the recall was negative for Cronobacter sakazakii. It also said no unopened, distributed Abbott formula has tested positive for the bacterium.

That distinction matters: the government alleged an unacceptable risk of contamination from manufacturing conditions; the settlement does not establish that the recalled formula caused an infants illness.

Nothing matters more than the safety and quality of Abbott's products, Abbott said in its statement. We make infant formula with the same care we would for our own families and are deeply committed to earning and maintaining caregivers' trust. As we move forward, Abbott remains focused on serving the families who depend on us every day.

The Justice Department said the resolved claims remain allegations and that there has been no determination of liability.

Officials caution consumers not to eat the meat because it has not been inspected

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Star Meat Delivery is recalling about 167,639 pounds of raw pork, beef and goat products that were produced without federal inspection.

• The meat was sent through a Georgia distributor to stores and restaurants nationwide. Shipping boxes may carry a false USDA inspection mark reading EST. 1363.

• No illnesses or injuries have been confirmed, but consumers should throw away affected meat or return it to the store.

Star Meat Delivery Inc. is recalling approximately 167,639 pounds of raw pork, beef and goat products that were produced without federal inspection, according to the U.S. Department of Agricultures Food Safety and Inspection Service.

USDA has listed this recall as Class I, the highest threat level.

The products were shipped to A&D Foods, a distributor in Georgia, and then sent to retail stores and restaurants nationwide. They include goat cuts, sliced beef, oxtail, short ribs, ground pork, chorizo, pork chops and other cuts. The meat was produced on various dates before September 22, 2026.

Shipping boxes bear a false USDA mark of inspection with the establishment number EST. 1363. FSIS says that number does not have a federal grant of inspection. Shoppers may have difficulty identifying the meat by its original label because stores may have placed their own price and handling stickers on individual packages.

Potential danger

FSIS discovered the problem during surveillance activities. The agency says food produced without inspection may contain harmful bacteria, undeclared allergens or other contaminants. It has received no confirmed reports of illness or injury linked to the recalled products.

The agency is concerned that some of the meat may still be in consumers refrigerators or freezers. Consumers should not eat it; they should throw it away or return it to the place of purchase. Restaurants and retailers should stop serving or selling the recalled products.

FSIS says it may add products to the recall as more information becomes available. Consumers can check the recall notice and available product labels or call the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 888-674-6854. Anyone concerned about an illness or injury should contact a healthcare provider.

The bipartisan bill passed 417-3 and now goes to the Senate

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• The House voted 4173 to pass a bill aimed at keeping data center construction costs off household electricity bills.

• The measure would require state regulators to consider making large data centers pay for the power infrastructure built to serve them.

• It would not lower bills immediately, and states would not be required to adopt the proposed standard.

The U.S. House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed legislation intended to prevent households and small businesses from paying for power grid upgrades needed by large data centers. The 4173 vote sends the Ratepayer Protection Act to the Senate.

Data centers need substantial amounts of electricity to run servers and cooling systems. Serving a new facility can require power generation and upgrades to transmission lines or local distribution equipment. If a utility spreads those costs across all its customers, residents and nearby businesses could see higher bills.

The House bill proposes a standard under which a qualifying data center would pay the full additional cost of upgrades needed to serve it. It also calls for the customer to provide financial assurances before construction begins, so other customers are less likely to be left paying for an upgrade if the data center cancels its contract or stops buying power.

The measure applies to new electricity agreements for data center sites or campuses with peak demand of at least 100 megawatts. House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders say the approach would let states protect ratepayers while continuing to attract data center investment.

What the bill would mean for electricity bills

The proposed protection has limits. If the bill becomes law, state utility regulators and certain utilities would have to consider the cost recovery standard and make a decision on it, generally within two years. They would not be required to adopt it. The bill also focuses on qualifying large data centers and the additional infrastructure costs needed to serve them; it does not promise a reduction in existing electricity rates.

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., objected to advancing a Senate version of the measure, arguing that asking states to consider the standard does not go far enough. He favors a requirement that large electricity users pay for the grid facilities needed to connect them.

The stakes are growing as data center electricity use rises. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects substantial growth in power consumption by data center servers over coming decades.

For consumers, the House vote is a step toward deciding who pays for that growth. It changes no utility bill today. The bill still needs Senate approval and the presidents signature, and its effect would depend in part on the decisions state regulators make.

Google search data show the two companies rank No. 1 in roughly nine out of 10 states

• Walmart and Amazon dominate: The two companies rank as the most-searched employer for careers in 46 of the 50 states plus Washington, D.C.

• Hometown companies can still win: H-E-B tops Texas, while Nike, Target, and Alaska Airlines lead in their home states, according to the rankings.

• Searches don't equal job applicants: The study measured Google searches for "[Company] Careers," meaning the numbers don't show how many individual people actually applied for jobs.

If you're looking for a new job, there's a good chance Walmart or Amazon is somewhere on your radar.

New Google search data show just how thoroughly the two corporate giants dominate Americans' searches for potential employers.

Researchers at Hirocom analyzed average monthly Google searches for "[Company] Careers" for 187 major U.S. employers from September 2025 through August 2026.

Walmart ranked No. 1 for career-related searches in 33 states, while Amazon took the top spot in 13 states.

Combined, the two companies finished first in 46 of the 50 states plus Washington, D.C. roughly nine out of 10.

In Alabama, for example, "Walmart Careers" averaged 27,100 monthly searches compared with 18,100 for Amazon. In New York, the positions were reversed, with Amazon averaging 33,100 searches compared with Walmart's 27,100.

But the states where neither company finished first might be the most interesting.

Hometown favorites beat the giants

In Texas, H-E-B blew past both Walmart and Amazon. "H-E-B Careers" averaged 246,000 monthly searches, compared with 165,000 for Walmart and 135,000 for Amazon. FedEx and Target rounded out the state's top five.

The only other states where an employer different than Walmart or Amazon ranked first were:

• Alaska: Alaska Airlines, with 880 average monthly searches, although Walmart also recorded 880.

• Minnesota: Hometown favorite Target took the top spot.

• Oregon: Nike, with 5,400 monthly searches, tied in search volume with Walmart.

• Washington: Google and Microsoft recorded the highest search volume.

The results show that major regional and hometown employers can still compete with retail giants like Walmart and Amazon.

Other regional names also cracked the top five without taking the No. 1 spot. Fidelity Investments was second in New Hampshire, Duke Energy ranked fourth in North Carolina, and Delta Air Lines was fifth in New York.

What the numbers don't tell us

There's an important catch with the rankings. The researchers used Google Keyword Planner to measure average monthly searches for the phrase "[Company] Careers."

That doesnt mean 246,000 different Texans searched for H-E-B jobs. The same person could search multiple times, and someone searching from one state could be interested in a job located somewhere else.

So the results shouldn't be interpreted as a ranking of where Americans most want to work or how many people actually applied for jobs at each company.

Instead, they're a snapshot of which major employers are generating the most career-related Google search activity. And on that measure, Walmart and Amazon are difficult to escape.