Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Richards v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 4, 2019No. 17-1003-cv; August Term 2017Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPooler, Circuit Judge
Direct Energy sucked customers in with an appealing teaser rate only to later jack up the cost when those customers would not notice. The temptation of this siren-like path was no accident. Direct Energy created "glide paths" to ensure customers were lulled into inattentiveness. It ramped up rates for those who were inattentive to begin with. And then it capitalized on its customers' lack of awareness. I am convinced that a jury could reasonably conclude that this pricing practice is unfair. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority's conclusion that Direct Energy did not *107commit an unfair…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Habetz v. CondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2018
- De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.