PITTSBURGH - An electricity supply company accused of fraudulent and deceptive practices when enticing customers to sign up for its service is clear of a potential class action lawsuit after a federal judge on Oct. 3 dismissed the final count.
Two Pennsylvania consumers, on behalf of themselves and others, sued Sperian Energy Corporation after they were persuaded to switch from their existing utility on the promise of a "competitive rate."
The defendants engaged in "bait-and-switch" tactics that led to thousands of consumers paying much more for their electricity, according to the plaintiffs.
All other claims under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act were previously dismissed, but the plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended claim on one count, which was that service was sold with the intent to deceive and that changes were made deceptively that led to a loss.
Plaintiffs John Corsale and David Taylor were both contacted by Sperian representatives in 2015 and offered the same deal, a three-month fixed rate followed by a month-to-month variable one. They signed up for the service.
The contract included a provision that the variable rate would change if there were a material adverse event, which the plaintiffs believed was largely based on the wholesale electricity price. However, the contract also included language stating that Sperian could change the agreement and the rates at any time and at its discretion after the three- month period.
After the three-month period, according to the decision, Corsale was charged between 13 and 102 percent above what he would have paid his previous provider, while Taylor faced a difference of between 6 and 135 percent.
Judge Marilyn J. Horan, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, noted in her order that the plaintiffs, in their amended complaint, made a claim of false advertising that was new, which was outside of what was allowed by the previous court ruling. This was dismissed.
Otherwise, Horan concentrated on the language of the contract and whether the plaintiffs were aware of its contents.
She found the provisions that stated Sperian could modify the agreement at any time after the three-month period protected the company from the claims of deceptive conduct that resulted in a loss.
The judge noted that the plaintiffs did "plead facts that Sperian engaged in deceptive conduct," but this was not enough to state a solid claim and the motion of dismissal was granted. A further motion to strike the class action was therefore moot, Horan stated.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case number 18-996.