Sumo Power allegedly misled consumers about electricity pricing

AER, Click energy, AGL, sumo power, AER, schneider, wholesale electricity prices

The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Sumo Power, alleging it made false or misleading representations to Victorian consumers in relation to its electricity plans.

It is alleged that between June and November 2018, Sumo promoted 12-month electricity plans with low electricity rates and large ‘pay on time’ discounts of up to 43 per cent to residential consumers, while planning to substantially increase the prices charged to those consumers who signed up within a few months, or knowing it was likely to do so.

The ACCC claims that Sumo represented to consumers that it would maintain, or not materially increase these low rates and consumers would get the benefit of the ‘pay on time’ discount for 12 months.

Related article: Goldwind gets $10m grant under emerging energy program

However, in November 2018, Sumo substantially increased the underlying rates for certain consumers, by approximately 30 to 46 per cent. The ACCC alleges the price increases were in line with a pre-determined strategy, which Sumo had not disclosed to consumers. The ACCC also alleges that the price increases substantially eroded or eliminated consumers’ pay on time discount. 

“We allege Sumo enticed consumers to enter into electricity plans with the promise of low cost electricity prices, while planning a significant rate increase which meant consumers were charged significantly more for their electricity than they were led to expect,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

Related article: Specialised maintenance works underway for Qld grid backbone

It is also part of the ACCC’s case that Sumo subsequently misled consumers when advising them that the price increases were due to wholesale energy cost factors including generation cost rises and “climate change and ageing assets forcing the closure of cheap coal fired power stations”.

Sumo used telemarking agents to cold-call residential consumers and promote its electricity plans. The ACCC claims that, acting on behalf of Sumo, the telemarketing agents represented they were independent and would perform a comparison of plans across a number of retailers, when in fact they were contracted by Sumo to sell Sumo plans.

“Electricity bills are a major household expense for many consumers,” Mr Sims said.

“We allege that consumers were likely to have been convinced to switch to Sumo, acting on recommendations from purported independent consultants when in fact they came from Sumo telemarketing agents.”

The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, publication orders, compliance program orders, consumer redress, and legal costs.