Betrayal as a Business Model

The core of this case is not just about money; it is about a profound breach of trust. CleanChoice Energy built its brand on two promises: a commitment to the planet and a fair price for consumers. Customers like plaintiff Mark Sommer signed up believing they were making a responsible choice, paying a reasonable premium to support clean energy. They thought they were part of a solution.

The lawsuit alleges this belief was a carefully constructed illusion. The feeling of doing good was allegedly sold to them at an extortionate markup. The legal complaint details how this “immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous” scheme has devastating real-world consequences, particularly for “society’s most vulnerable citizens.” When a family is forced to choose between an inflated electricity bill, medicine, or food, the damage goes far beyond their bank account. It is an attack on their stability, their health, and their dignity.

“Exorbitant energy prices have devastating consequences for families struggling from month-to-month to pay for utility bills, rent or the mortgage, auto loans, food, medicine and other necessities.”

This is the non-financial cost of CleanChoice’s alleged business model: the weaponization of hope. They took people’s desire to build a better world and allegedly turned it into a mechanism for profit extraction. The real product sold was not clean energy; it was the feeling of virtue, and it came at a predatory price.

Legal Receipts: The Contract as a Weapon

The company’s own words, as cited in the legal filings, form the backbone of the case against them. CleanChoice’s contracts were not merely agreements; they were instruments of the alleged deception.

CleanChoice uniformly represents in its customer contract that the variable electricity rate…will be calculated “based on market conditions and CleanChoice Energy’s costs to provide energy supply service…”

This clause suggests a simple, transparent formula. The lawsuit argues it was anything but. The data shows rates allegedly untethered from either market conditions or actual costs, instead fluctuating wildly to maximize corporate profit.

Each of CleanChoice’s three statements about the source of its electricity are false and deceptive because the electricity CleanChoice supplies is the same “brown” electricity sourced from the exact same place as the electricity provided by customers’ existing utilities.

This is the greenwashing allegation laid bare. The promise of “100% renewable energy” was allegedly a marketing fiction. Customers received the same power mix as everyone else on the grid. The only difference was that CleanChoice purchased Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), a practice the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office has criticized as doing nothing to help the region meet its climate goals.

Societal Impact Mapping

Environmental Degradation

CleanChoice’s business model allegedly undermines the very cause it claims to support. By selling “green” electricity that is not actually green, they dilute the market for genuine renewable energy projects. As noted by the Massachusetts Attorney General and the mayor of Boston, the “cheap out-of-state energy credits” used by companies like CleanChoice “do nothing to help the Commonwealth or region achieve its ambitious and critical greenhouse gas reduction goals.” This isn’t just a neutral act; it’s a harmful one. It allows polluters to continue polluting while consumers are given a false sense of progress, delaying the real, difficult work of transitioning our energy grid.

Economic Inequality

The system of energy deregulation, intended to foster competition and lower prices, has been turned on its head. The lawsuit claims CleanChoice exploited this system to prey on consumers who lack the time or resources to constantly monitor complex energy markets. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration data cited in the complaint, CleanChoice consistently charged among the highest rates of all energy service companies (ESCOs) in Massachusetts. In 2022, its average price was 43% higher than the average ESCO price. This is a direct transfer of wealth from working families to corporate shareholders, disguised as an environmental initiative.

The “Greenwashing Tax” Metric

The numbers from the court filing paint a damning picture. We are not talking about small markups. We are talking about a systematic, massive overcharging scheme that financially punished customers for their environmental conscience. The comparison between what CleanChoice charged and the actual market supply cost reveals the scale of the alleged price gouging.

What Now? The Resistance

This lawsuit is a critical first step. It seeks not only damages for those overcharged but also an injunction to stop these alleged deceptive practices. But a single lawsuit is not enough to fix a broken system. Real change requires sustained public pressure and regulatory action.

Your power does not end with choosing an energy provider. It extends to collective action. Support local consumer advocacy groups pushing for stronger regulations on ESCOs. Demand that your state legislators end the predatory practices that flourish in deregulated markets. Organize within your community to share information and protect your neighbors from similar schemes. This is not just about one company; it is about reclaiming public control over essential utilities and ensuring they serve people, not just profits.