|
|
|
|
|
AG's Suit Alleges Terms "Illinois Choice Program" & "Utility Choice Program" Deceptive
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Similar to other recent litigation (here and here), the Illinois Attorney General's recently filed suit against Spark Energy LLC and Spark Energy Gas (Spark, with references to Spark also including alleged actions undertaken by Spark's agents) alleges, among other things, that the use of the term "Utility Choice Program", and similar terms, is misleading, because such terms allegedly convey a relationship with a utility or government body, in violation of 815 ILCS 505/2; 815 ILCS 505/2EE(b)(1)-(2)
Last week, Spark Energy provided the following statement concerning the matter:
"Spark Energy is unable to comment on pending legal matters. However, we hope to work collaboratively with the Attorney General's office to reach an amicable resolution."
--- 1/16/25 Statement from Spark Energy
The AG's suit alleges, "Spark Energy has ... repeatedly misrepresented, either expressly or by implication, an association with ComEd, a public utility that consumers know and depend on to deliver their electricity, or a State-funded program."
In support of this allegation, the AG averred, "While the deregulation of the utility market in 1997 allowed Illinois consumers to choose their electric or gas supplier, there is no state or ComEd 'program.'"
The AG alleged, "Spark Energy’s scripts reference 'ComEd’s Electric Choice Program' and include language like, 'ComEd now offers you a choice.'"
The AG alleged, "Hundreds of Spark Energy telemarketing recordings during the relevant time period also reference an 'Illinois Choice Program' or 'Utility Choice Program.'"
In another allegation common to most retail energy lawsuits filed by the Illinois AG, the AG alleged that Spark agents violated the state's Telephone Solicitations Act, which uniquely requires the solicitor to "immediately" state the purpose of the call, and to seek and to obtain the customer's consent before continuing further with the call
Although the AG's suit alleges specific scripts from Spark which allegedly fail the "purpose of the call" standard, more broadly the AG's suit essentially alleges that any introduction, other than immediately informing the customer that the purpose of the call is to "switch" the customer's energy supplier, would fail the requirements of the Telephone Solicitations Act
With regards to Spark, the AG alleged, "During telemarketing recordings that have been spliced and altered, Spark sales agent stated that they were calling about 'provid[ing] you these better rates on your same electric bill,' and about the 'fixed rate on your electric bill,' but failed to explicitly state that they were calling about switching the consumers' electricity or gas supplier and selling the consumer a different product entirely."
The AG also alleged that Spark failed to obtain the customer's consent before proceeding with the sales call in "hundreds" of instances
As previously reported, the AG alleged that certain telemarketing recordings from Spark were altered
The AG alleged, "For example, hundreds of Spark’s telemarketing recordings during the relevant time period lacked a natural, conversational flow between Spark’s sales agents and consumers. In these recordings, the consumers did not ask any questions about the solicitation, answered all questions with a 'yes' or 'OK', and did exactly what the sales agent requested without question (such as providing their account number or grabbing their bill). It is implausible that hundreds of consumers had no questions about what they were being sold and it is evident that these consumers’
'yes' and 'OK' responses were recorded and inserted throughout the recording to give the appearance of a consensual enrollment."
The AG alleged that Spark failed to provide to customers certain rate increase notices required under law, including for customers assigned to Spark from other suppliers
The AG alleged over 24,000 instances in which Spark failed to provide the required rate increase notice. The AG further alleged that more than 20,000 of such instances were for rate increases higher than 40%, with the highest increase being 135% in one month.
The AG alleged, "Many consumers did not receive notification that their accounts were being transferred from one ARES [supplier] to another, let alone that the new ARES, Spark Energy, would be doubling their variable rates within months of the transfer."
The AG alleged, "For example, Spark Energy increased many of these new customers’ rates from 9.99 cents/kWh in January or February 2019 to a whopping 17.99 cents/kWh in March or April 2019."
The AG alleged that from March 2020 through February 2022, Spark's electricity customers in aggregate paid over $32 million more than default service, and that Spark's natural gas customers in aggregate paid over $7 million more than default service during that same period.
Given such prices, the AG alleged that marketing materials from Spark, which stated that Spark’s rates were "low" and would save consumers money, were unlawful misrepresentations
The AG specifically alleged that the following statements were misrepresentations from Spark:
• 'I want to talk about how we can help save you money on your electricity bills'
• 'Switching simply helps you save money on your electricity bill'
• 'Did you know that when you select Spark as your supplier of electricity, you can lock into a low, fixed rate'
• 'Enjoy a fixed rate and more money in your pocket'
• 'Enjoy another contract full of savings'
Among the relief sought by the AG is the revocation of Spark's Illinois retail supplier licenses
The AG in the suit does not propose a total monetary penalty, but generally seeks a fine of $50,000 per violation. As noted, the AG alleges over 24,000 violations related to the rate notice requirement, and at least "hundreds" of telemarketing violations
The AG also sought an unspecified amount of restitution to customers, as well as, "rescission of contracts".
The case is No. 2025CH00428, Cook County, IL Circuit Court, County Department, Chancery Division
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Suit Seeks Revocation Of Retail Supplier's Licenses, & Contract Rescissions
January 20, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Manager / Director of Sales, PJM Commercial
|
|
|
|
|