Allegations have surfaced that a third-party electric supplier charged New Jersey residents significantly more for electricity than they should have paid, while making misleading promises about clean energy. A proposed class action complaint was filed on April 24, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Susan Snowball and Daniel Upperco against CleanChoice Energy, Inc. and its CEO Thomas Matzzie.
According to the filing, CleanChoice is a third-party electric supplier operating in New Jersey’s deregulated retail electricity market. The plaintiffs allege that CleanChoice took advantage of deregulation by misrepresenting how their electricity rates were calculated. The complaint states: “CleanChoice’s representation in its customer contract regarding how its variable electricity rate is determined is false and deceptive, and designed to take advantage of consumers’ good faith and their lack of knowledge about… CleanChoice’s costs, expenses, and margins.” Instead of basing prices on actual costs as promised in contracts, the plaintiffs claim CleanChoice used a methodology focused on maximizing profits.
The lawsuit outlines several key points where CleanChoice allegedly failed to adequately disclose important information to customers. These include not informing customers that variable energy rates were consistently higher than those charged by local utilities; failing to explain that customers received no material added benefit other than minimal renewable energy certificates (RECs); omitting details about how monthly rates were actually set; downplaying the impact of high variable rates on bills; not disclosing under what conditions savings might occur; and overstating the cost or value of RECs relative to overall charges.
Plaintiffs Snowball and Upperco state they signed up with CleanChoice in October 2020 after reviewing marketing materials promising “100% clean, pollution-free energy” at reasonable rates based on company costs. They canceled their service around February 2026 after incurring what they describe as excessive charges. The complaint asserts: “Plaintiffs relied on this pricing term in deciding to enroll with CleanChoice,” referring to contract language stating rates would be “based on a number of costs which may include… plus CleanChoice Energy operating costs, expenses, and margins.” However, data presented in the filing shows that from March 2025 through January 2026, CleanChoice’s rates were regularly double or triple those offered by local utility JCP&L.
The legal filing also challenges CleanChoice’s environmental claims. Plaintiffs allege that marketing materials falsely stated customers would receive “100% clean” or “pollution-free” energy when in reality all electricity comes from a mixed grid supply. The company reportedly purchases inexpensive RECs as offsets rather than directly supplying renewable power. A regulatory submission cited in the complaint confirms: “It is impossible to isolate the electricity generated by renewables from… non-renewable sources because they are all mixed together.” Plaintiffs argue these representations are materially misleading.
The document further describes a pattern of similar complaints against CleanChoice across multiple states. It references regulatory actions taken by authorities in Massachusetts and Illinois alleging deceptive practices such as raising prices regardless of market conditions or failing to provide critical information about RECs offered. In one instance cited from Massachusetts regulators: “CleanChoice’s contract summary forms and contract were inaccurate and deceptive.” The company has previously entered into settlements with consumer protection agencies over related issues.
On behalf of themselves and all similarly situated New Jersey customers who purchased electricity services from CleanChoice since deregulation began, Snowball and Upperco seek damages including restitution for overcharges, statutory penalties, punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at stopping what they describe as ongoing unfair business practices.
The plaintiffs are represented by Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP and Wittels McInturff Palikovic. The case is identified as Civil Case No.: 3:26-cv-04550.
Source: 326cv04550_Snowball_v_Cleanchoice_Energy_Inc_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
