Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

Retail Supplier To Pay Restitution To Customers Under Settlement With Attorney General (AG), For What AG Alleges Were, "Illegal Robocalls", That Resulted In "Overpriced" Contracts

July 17, 2020

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Spark Energy, LLC and the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General (AG) have entered into an agreed consent judgment under which Spark is to pay restitution to approximately 559 customers which the AG alleges were enrolled between January 1, 2016 through June 20, 2017, "as a result of an illegal robocall campaign," as stated by the AG.

According to the consent agreement, such customers paid approximately $15,000 more than what they would have paid had they remained on their respective electric utility's standard service rate.

Spark is to refund to customers the difference between the rates charged to customers and the standard service rate, plus 1.5% annual interest, less any prior refunds.

Spark Energy provided the following statement concerning the matter: "Spark Energy is happy to have the matter settled and behind us so we can continue focusing on delivering excellent service to Connecticut customers."

The matter arises out of a prior PURA proceeding, in which Spark agreed to a $500,000 settlement concerning similar alleged robocalls (see story here for more details on alleged behavior). The calls were allegedly placed by a subcontractor of a third-party agent which was marketing on behalf of Spark. As part of the PURA proceeding, PURA referred to the Attorney General and Department of Consumer Protection the findings in the proceeding for further investigation, including an investigation into other numbers used by Spark or its apparent agent to leave, "illegal", as termed by PURA, pre-recorded messages.

In such PURA proceeding, PURA found that the calls used a pre-recorded message that, "(1) never identifies Spark as the entity conducting the telemarketing, (2) represents to customers that the solicitation call is from an electric distribution company, (3) never explains the purpose of the sales call, which was to have customers enroll in a supply contract with Spark, and (4) misstates the electric distribution company's current charges."

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong alleged in a news release that, "Spark Energy used illegal robocalls to trick consumers into overpaying for electricity. All overpayments they reaped from that reprehensible campaign must now be rightfully returned to consumers. This restitution, on top of the significant fine already levied by PURA, should send a strong message to any third-party suppliers that Connecticut stands ready to aggressively enforce its consumer protection laws in defense of ratepayers."

As stated in the consent agreement, PURA determined that the pre-recorded telephone solicitations were likely done by Spark's agent, a third-party telemarketer, and a subcontractor for such telemarketer.

As stated in the consent agreement, "PURA determined that these telemarketers placed approximately 151,892 pre-recorded telephone solicitations between May 17 and June 20, 2017."

The consent agreement notes that, "Spark is entering into this Agreed Consent Judgment for the purpose of settlement and nothing contained herein may be taken as, or construed to be, an admission or confession of any violation of law, or any other matter of fact or law, of any liability or wrongdoing."

As stated in the consent agreement, "The State recognizes that Spark has cooperated with the Investigation and has, prior to the Effective Date, voluntarily implemented improvements to its processes."

As stated in the consent agreement, the State alleges that the evidence presented in PURA Docket No. 10-06-18RE02 demonstrates that Spark has violated General Statutes §§ 16-245(g)(2), 16-245o(h)(l), 16- 245o(h)(2)(A), 16-245o(h)(3), 16-245o(h)(4), 16-245o(j) and 42-110b.

As stated in the consent agreement, the State alleges that the 151,892 pre-recorded telephone solicitations violated The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l)(B) ("TCPA") and General Statutes § 42-288a.

As stated in the consent agreement, the State further alleges that the 151,892 pre-recorded telephone solicitations violated General Statues § 16-256e.

As stated in the consent agreement, the State alleges that the 151,892 pre-recorded telephone solicitations violated General Statutes § 52-570c(a).

As stated in the consent agreement, the State alleges that the 151,892 pre-recorded telephone solicitations violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 42-110b, et seq.

As stated in the consent agreement, the State alleges Spark is liable for the acts of its agents pursuant to General Statutes § 16-245o(h)(1).

The consent agreement was filed Friday in Hartford Superior Court, and will not become final unless and until it is approved by the court.

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW! -- Billing Specialist -- Retail Supplier  -- Texas
NEW! -- Director - Distributed Generation, Demand Response, & Market Participation -- Houston
NEW! -- Retail Energy Account Executive -- Houston
NEW! -- Business Development Manager

Email This Story

HOME

Copyright 2010-20 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.

 

Archive

Daily Email

Events

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search