[1] INTRODUCTION
In a legal complaint filed in the Suffolk Superior Court of Massachusetts, a group of consumers led by Plaintiff Allison Newton alleges that Eversource Energy has systematically charged exorbitant “Reconnect Charges” that bear no relationship to its actual costs.
Specifically, the complaint cites a fee of $102 that Eversource levies on households to “reconnect” their electricity—a process that can now be executed remotely, within seconds, thanks to modern “smart meter” technology. These fees, often described as “junk fees” by consumer advocates, disproportionately affect people living on the financial edge. Under the most dire of circumstances—when someone has lost electric service due to nonpayment—Eversource’s policy forces them to pay an additional triple-digit sum merely to have their lights turned back on.
At the same time, other utility companies across the country charge nothing or merely $5 for the same kind of reconnection. The complaint portrays these fees as a glaring example of “corporate greed,” with no relevant justification other than profit-seeking.
Charging $102 for a process that can be completed with a computer keystroke, from miles away, raises serious concerns. It suggests Eversource is imposing a punitive penalty on its most vulnerable customers—effectively taxing them for being too poor to pay on time. The complaint contends that this practice is “unfair and deceptive,” and given the negligible operational cost to remotely reconnect service, the entire fee structure seems little more than an opportunistic cash grab.
While the allegations focus on Eversource, they also pull back the curtain on broader systemic problems under neoliberal capitalism. From deregulation and regulatory capture to the incentives of profit-maximization, large corporations often appear to have a free hand to exploit customers who have nowhere else to turn. When it comes to essential services like electricity, consumers have very few options—especially in regions where a single utility holds near-monopoly control. Critics say this dynamic fosters corporate accountability failures, undermines corporate social responsibility, exacerbates wealth disparity, and chips away at public trust in the fairness of our economic systems.
This article examines the allegations in depth and places them into the broader historical and economic context of corporate conduct in the United States. Organized into eight main sections, it will first expose the alleged corporate intent behind these excessive fees, then analyze how companies can get away with such practices even under the watch of regulators.
We will explore why corporate corruption persists, how it flourishes under a neoliberal framework, and how a corporate ethics vacuum leads to practices that primarily serve shareholders at the expense of everyday people. We will also investigate the PR strategies such corporations deploy to deflect public outrage when these sorts of controversies emerge, and finish by considering whether the public interest can ultimately prevail over corporate power.
In detailing the alleged Eversource scandal, this investigative piece also serves as a lens through which to understand systemic trends: that is, how a fundamental pattern of profit-driven, punitive charges against vulnerable populations is neither an accident nor an anomaly. Instead, as critics argue, it may be an intentional feature of an economic system that rewards corporate greed. In that sense, what’s happening at Eversource could easily happen—and, historically, has happened—in many other sectors, from telecommunications to banking to pharmaceuticals.
With that framework in place, let us begin by examining the details of the Eversource allegations, as presented in the lawsuit. We’ll then widen the scope to broader structural and historical conditions that enable such alleged misconduct. This narrative weaves together the specifics of the complaint with a sobering perspective on how corporate abuse of monopoly power—particularly with regard to basic human needs like electricity—continues to emerge in our modern era.
[2] CORPORATE INTENT EXPOSED
Eversource allegedly imposes $102 “Reconnect Charges” on residential consumers even though the actual cost to re-enable service is negligible. The central claim is that these fees are so inflated, and serve so little operational purpose, that they amount to “unconscionable” profiteering. The legal complaint asserts these fees do not reflect any legitimate cost of shutting off or restoring power. Instead, they effectively function as a penalty for late payment—an exorbitant penalty that lines Eversource’s pockets while penalizing people who are already struggling.
Digging into the Allegations
- Smart Meter Systems
One crucial development highlighted in the complaint is Eversource’s installation of “smart meters.” These devices allow electricity to be disconnected and reconnected remotely, a modern digital convenience that eliminates the need for service trucks or in-person manual labor. Historically, a utility might have had to send a technician to physically disconnect power at a household’s meter. With smart meters, no real staff time or equipment is needed for the process. A few clicks in a centralized system can halt or restore service to a household. - A “Junk Fee” for Desperate Customers
Under the older, manual approach, some might have argued that a fee was justified because a worker had to be dispatched to physically reconnect power, incurring labor and travel costs. The complaint calls that reasoning obsolete in the smart-meter era. Yet, Eversource maintains its $102 “Reconnect Charge”, even if all that is done is a remote keystroke. The complaint alleges this difference between actual cost and charged fee reveals the corporation’s real motive: to maximize revenues from vulnerable customers. - Disproportionate Impact on Low-Income Households
The fee surfaces at the worst time for the customer: They’ve just been through a service disconnection, meaning they’re likely already in financial distress. Disconnection of electricity is by itself catastrophic: refrigeration stops working, lights are out, computers and medical devices may not function. Families with small children, the elderly, or chronically ill patients cannot wait days to get reconnected. Under these crisis conditions, many feel forced to pay any fee. The complaint portrays that dynamic as an exploitative tactic: a so-called “take it or leave it” proposition, but with no real choice. - Failure to Disclose
The legal complaint further alleges that Eversource’s fine print does not adequately disclose these charges to new customers. People often do not realize the reconnection fee exists, or how large it is, until after they have lost service. Consumers are thus blindsided by an unexpectedly high fee, compounding their economic hardship. The complaint references the phenomenon of “junk fees” being widely criticized by policymakers and consumer advocacy groups. The White House, in one of its policy briefs on junk fees, stated that such hidden or overly inflated charges undermine competitive markets and harm economically precarious households the most. Eversource’s practice, the complaint claims, fits neatly into the definition of a junk fee: mandatory, high in cost, and seldom disclosed until the consumer is cornered. - Naming the Conduct ‘Unconscionable’
A recurring legal motif in the complaint is that Eversource’s behavior is “unconscionable.” In law, unconscionability generally means a contract term is so one-sided that no reasonable person would have consented if they had known all the facts. Here, the complaint points out that no clear contractual provision expressly grants Eversource the right to levy $102 for a near-instantaneous, automated reconnection. Indeed, the complaint argues that it amounts to charging consumers for the “privilege of paying for electricity again,” with no real correlation to cost or labor.
By filing a class action, the people seek monetary damages, restitution, and what they call “public injunctive relief”—essentially asking the court to stop Eversource from imposing these fees in the future. Thousands of customers, they argue, have paid the fee under duress and deserve refunds.
Why Alleged Corporate Intent Matters
The complaint’s focus on corporate intent is significant because it undercuts any claim Eversource might make that it is merely following standard cost recovery practices. It invites the question: Were these fees designed primarily as a punitive revenue stream? If the answer is yes, then the lawsuit suggests Eversource was acting with an ulterior motive—profiting off the same disadvantaged customers who are most likely to struggle with utility bills.
Critics like us argue that this is an example of corporate corruption in the utility sector, intensified by neoliberal capitalism. In such an environment, a private entity controlling a near-essential service can impose “penalties” with minimal pushback, because consumers often lack real alternatives. The situation reveals potential weaknesses in corporate social responsibility: while many companies champion ethical business practices in their public relations, the reality can diverge significantly when it comes to fees and rates.
Moreover, from a corporate ethics standpoint, charging $102 for a single computer command stands out as a red flag. In an industry that is tightly regulated and integral to the public welfare, the presence of such questionable charges suggests a structural disregard for the well-being of lower-income households.
Throughout the rest of this piece, we’ll connect these dots to the broader phenomenon of “the corporate playbook”: the suite of tactics large enterprises use to shield themselves from scrutiny, limit liability, and keep profits flowing, even when that means pushing questionable fees onto desperate consumers.
[3] THE CORPORATE PLAYBOOK / HOW THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT
In the United States, essential services like electricity are often delivered by corporate monopolies or near-monopolies. Eversource Energy is not unique in this regard; it is part of a broader trend where private utility companies operate with limited direct competition, subject mostly to government oversight. The plaintiffs’ case against Eversource thus dovetails with well-documented critiques of the “utility monopoly model.”
Common Tactics in the Utility Industry
- Hidden Fee Structures
Many corporate entities, not just utilities, rely on confusing or obfuscated pricing to boost profits. In the context of Eversource, the complaint alleges that the “Reconnect Charge” was not clearly spelled out in the terms of service or was buried in the fine print that few customers read. A classic corporate playbook strategy is to rely on a lengthy user agreement that few people scrutinize. This lack of transparency ensures that the fee only becomes visible after the consumer is already in crisis. - Exploiting Monopoly or Near-Monopoly Status
If customers had an alternative, they might take their business elsewhere. But electricity is not a commodity that can be easily shopped around—at least not without significant logistical hurdles and time. In many areas, Eversource holds an effective monopoly for distribution, and switching to another service provider can be prohibitively complex. This imbalance of power is a hallmark of neoliberal capitalism in the utility sector: privatization with insufficient competition often reduces the impetus for genuine corporate accountability. - Delayed Billing and “Fees on Fees”
The complaint describes how the “Reconnect Charge” can spiral into further disconnects if it creates additional debt burdens. Late fees and subsequent charges can add up, pushing the consumer deeper into arrears. This phenomenon can be labeled a “poverty penalty”—essentially an additional cost for being poor. These cycles of disconnection and reconnection can leave households perpetually paying more than better-off customers, thereby worsening wealth disparity. - Strategic Use of Bureaucratic Complexity
Another tactic that can allow questionable fees to slip by is the creation of complex or opaque billing systems. Consumers, already under financial stress, often struggle to navigate phone trees, disclaimers, and administrative hurdles to dispute fees. Companies leverage this confusion, counting on the likelihood that frustrated customers will simply give up, especially when they have urgent needs like restoring vital electricity service.
Relevance to the Eversource Allegations
The legal complaint implies that Eversource “got away with it” by harnessing these structural factors. First, the “smart meter” angle drastically reduces Eversource’s actual cost of reconnection, yet the invoice remains stuck at $102. In other words, the company is effectively unrestrained because the public—individual consumers—lacks both knowledge of the true cost structure and the capacity to switch to an alternative provider.
This dynamic is analogous to other industries where the corporate playbook thrives. For instance, in banking, undisclosed overdraft fees proliferated for years, creating billions of dollars in profits from customers living paycheck to paycheck. In telecommunications, “activation fees” for internet or phone plans soared, even though the actual cost is largely automated. Eversource’s alleged approach to “Reconnect Charges” fits the same mold: a hidden or poorly disclosed upcharge that does not match the cost of the service supposedly being rendered.
Mitigating Competition Through Regulation
One might ask, “Why isn’t Eversource subject to more meaningful competition or oversight?” Historically, utilities are regulated by state or regional public utility commissions. However, the complaint underscores a phenomenon known as regulatory capture, wherein the regulatory body, meant to protect consumers, ends up prioritizing the interests of the regulated industry.
If the allegations are correct, Eversource took advantage of an environment where the official “approval” or “review” of disconnection fees might have been too lenient. In other words, Eversource possibly banked on the probability that no public official or office would vigorously question a $102 reconnection fee—especially if the rationale were couched in vague references to “operational costs.”
Lack of Meaningful Disclosures
A final critical element is how the complaint portrays Eversource’s communications with customers. Plaintiffs claim that Eversource offered no “clear contractual authority” for the fee, meaning the contract documents fail to specify or justify $102 as a standard, across-the-board reconnection charge for every scenario. Some disclaimers may exist, but the complaint suggests they are either too buried in the terms of service or too vaguely worded to be legally sufficient.
This points to a broader phenomenon: many large corporations adopt an “omnibus contract” that includes dozens of disclaimers and ambiguous clauses. By the time a consumer needs to reference it—e.g., after service disconnection—there is either no relevant line item that conclusively lays out the reconnection fee, or the mention is so obscure that it was effectively concealed. From a corporate ethics standpoint, such a practice often leads to accusations of “deception by omission” because the company is not directly lying about the fee but is certainly not making it plain to consumers either.
[4] CRIME PAYS / THE CORPORATE PROFIT EQUATION
The complaint draws a grim picture of how Eversource’s business model may encourage the corporation to impose fees that generate easy revenue. This is where the rubber meets the road: if a company can add high-margin charges to thousands of impoverished customers, the aggregate effect on corporate profits can be enormous.
Mechanics of Profitable Penalties
- Volume of Disconnections
The complaint cites data indicating that approximately 1.25 million households in the U.S. lose electric service each year. While not all of those households are Eversource customers, it suggests a larger environment in which disconnections are not rare. Post-pandemic, disconnections have increased as arrearages built up during moratoria come due. This means more chances for Eversource to charge reconnection fees and more potential profit from each reconnection event. - High Margin / Low Cost
If reconnection under a smart meter system costs the company only a few minutes of an employee’s time—or even just an automated script—then the $102 charge constitutes a massive profit margin. The complaint also notes that other utilities sometimes charge $5 or nothing at all for the same service. In that light, Eversource’s reconnection fee stands out as particularly egregious. - Reliance on Necessity
Electricity is indispensable—families can’t just decide to live without it, at least not without serious consequences. Eversource, allegedly aware of this, can demand virtually any reconnection fee from customers who can’t afford to remain in the dark. The complaint calls this unconscionable, effectively likening it to extortion under the guise of a standard utility fee.
From the standpoint of corporate accountability, these profit-driven dynamics highlight the tension between maximizing shareholder value and safeguarding the public interest. Under neoliberal capitalism, corporations are often encouraged to pursue profitability above all else. When that motive meets an essential service, critics argue, a moral hazard emerges: the company knows its customers have no practical alternative, so it can inflate fees with little fear of losing business.
Economic Fallout on Local Communities
Given that Eversource serves a large swath of Massachusetts, one must consider the economic fallout on communities experiencing repeated disconnections and reconnection fees. Every $102 fee for a low-income household could have otherwise gone toward groceries, rent, medication, or other basic needs. Repeated hits of this nature, especially if disconnection cycles continue, may trap families in a vicious cycle of debt. That’s not merely an individual calamity; entire communities can suffer ripple effects.
- Increased Poverty and Wealth Disparity
Persistent, high-cost reconnection fees effectively shift wealth from poorer households to a large utility corporation, exacerbating wealth disparity. - Public Health Concerns
Though the complaint does not detail public-health ramifications, many corporations’ dangers to public health arise when essential services are out of reach. In extreme weather conditions—heat waves or freezing winters—lack of electricity can be life-threatening. Even short disconnections can endanger those reliant on electric-powered medical devices. - Local Economic Strain
When individuals must pay out large sums to a monopolistic entity, less money circulates in local businesses. Over time, the cumulative effect can dampen local economic vitality.
This synergy of profit-seeking and dire social consequences is a familiar storyline: from corporate corruption in large banks leading to the 2008 financial crisis, to corporate greed in the pharmaceutical industry that prices life-saving medicines out of reach, the pattern is similar. The Eversource allegations revolve around a microcosm of that phenomenon, focusing on how an essential service can leverage desperate circumstances for financial gain.
Why the ‘Crime Pays’ Model Endures
As common sense havers see it, this model endures because the systemic incentives encourage it. A publicly traded firm such as Eversource must demonstrate growth and profitability to shareholders. Fees and penalties are a particularly appealing strategy because:
- They Are Low-Visibility
Hidden or poorly disclosed fees often attract less immediate outrage than a direct rate hike—especially if they affect only those in financial distress. - They Allow Cross-Subsidization
Penalties on delinquent customers can subsidize other operational costs or boost dividends without requiring broad rate increases, which might face more intense regulatory scrutiny. - They Are Difficult to Contest
Because of the urgent nature of reconnection, consumers seldom have time or resources to mount a legal challenge—or even to file complaints with state regulators. By the time they gather the means to do so, the corporation has already collected the fee.
The lawsuit contends that a significant portion of Eversource’s reconnection revenues come from a vulnerable demographic. If true, that practice flies in the face of corporate social responsibility, reinforcing critics’ claims that in sectors like utilities, the pursuit of profit can override moral or ethical considerations—especially for low-income communities.
[5] SYSTEM FAILURE / WHY REGULATORS DID NOTHING
One might assume that in a regulated industry like electricity, a state commission would swiftly clamp down on a $102 reconnection fee once it became aware of the practice. So why is it, according to the complaint, that Eversource has maintained this fee structure? The plaintiffs suggest that the normal checks and balances have failed.
An Overview of Utility Regulation
In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) is tasked with overseeing private utilities. It reviews and approves certain rate structures and, in theory, monitors companies to ensure they provide reliable service at fair prices. However, the complaint highlights that this oversight may not extend to every specific fee or that the oversight is often cursory.
Regulatory Capture
A key concept in the complaint’s broader framework is regulatory capture: the process by which a regulated entity, through lobbying, political influence, or other means, steers regulators to act in the company’s interest rather than the public’s. Some possible symptoms:
- Lenient Approvals: Regulators might rubber-stamp fees if they appear in a long docket of utility rate cases, especially if regulators rely on data provided by the company itself.
- Industry Lobbying: Utilities often wield significant political power; any move by the DPU or legislators to rein in fees might be met with strong corporate pushback and the threat of political consequences.
- Information Asymmetry: The utility has far more data and expertise on its own operations. Regulators may not have the resources or staff expertise to dig deeply into specific charges like the reconnection fee, leaving them reliant on the company’s cost justifications.
Public vs. Private Interests
In a theoretical sense, the entire purpose of regulating utilities is to protect the public from unfair practices. Yet the complaint underscores how disconnections—and associated fees—are rarely front-page news. Regulatory bodies might focus more on big-picture rate cases, or on ensuring system reliability. Fees that primarily affect lower-income customers might go under the radar, particularly if consumer advocacy groups are under-resourced.
Another dimension is the potential “revolving door” effect, where regulators and utility executives swap roles, or where individuals in regulatory agencies aspire to move into lucrative positions with utility companies. Such an environment can create a disincentive to tackle corporate practices aggressively.
Deregulation Trends
Over the last few decades, many states have pursued partial or full deregulation of energy markets. The idea was to spur competition and lower consumer prices. Instead, critics argue that partial deregulation sometimes creates new loopholes for utilities and energy providers, while actual competition remains limited. Eversource’s footprint in Massachusetts remains dominant in distribution, even if some aspects of energy supply are open to third-party providers. The net result, says the complaint, is that the core problem persists: Eversource can still impose fees with minimal pushback because the distribution infrastructure is essentially theirs to control.
Why Did No One Speak Up?
A plausible reason that Eversource’s reconnection fees have not sparked immediate regulatory clampdown might be that the consumers most affected do not have an influential voice. If the penalty primarily targets those who are least able to pay, that same group might also be least likely to navigate the legal or bureaucratic channels for lodging formal complaints. Only when a class action lawsuit arises do these systemic grievances surface publicly.
Ramifications of Systemic Regulatory Failure
The broader implication is that the system itself, designed to protect consumers, can serve to legitimize questionable fees if no one specifically challenges them. This dynamic is not unique to Eversource or to utilities; it is seen across many sectors in the U.S. economy. Still, the shock value of $102 for a five-second digital reconnection highlights how easily the system can break down when oversight remains lax.
- Undermining of Corporate Accountability: Regulators become seen as ineffective or captive to industry influence.
- Escalation of Wealth Disparity: The poorest households face punitive fees, compounding their economic disadvantages.
- Fraying of Public Trust: When a vital industry appears to exploit vulnerable consumers, the public loses faith in both corporate and government institutions.
The complaint presents a narrative where all of the conditions for abuse are in place: little competition, minimal oversight, a necessity-based service, and an impoverished consumer base lacking resources to fight back. Such conditions embody the darker side of neoliberal capitalism, in which privatized systems are expected to self-regulate but often fail to serve the broader public interest.
[6] THIS PATTERN OF PREDATION IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG
If charging exorbitant fees to vulnerable customers seems like an unfortunate glitch in the system, critics argue it is far from incidental. They maintain that under neoliberal capitalism, exploitation of captive or distressed consumers is not just possible, but systematically incentivized. The Eversource lawsuit, therefore, provides a tangible example of what many see as an intentional strategy to extract profits from those with the least bargaining power.
How Predatory Practices Become Systemic
- Structural Power Imbalance
The utility sector is an archetype of a “captive market”: customers cannot realistically forgo electricity or rely on alternative providers without extreme difficulty. This near-monopoly grants Eversource—and companies like it—outsize leverage, which they can use to impose hidden or inflated charges. - Profit Maximization Ethos
In a stockholder-driven environment, short-term profitability often reigns supreme. Corporate boards may view each incremental fee as a legitimate revenue stream. This unrelenting focus on profit maximization can overshadow ethical considerations, leading to outcomes that appear deliberately punitive. - Regulatory Gaps
As discussed, the complaint suggests that public utility regulators have not effectively challenged Eversource’s $102 fee. Whether through negligence, insufficient resources, or capture, the result is the same: if the watchdog is asleep, the cat can plunder at will. - Normalization of Fees
Over time, companies can normalize these charges, presenting them as standard practice. Since many consumers fail to read or understand the labyrinthine terms of service, they assume the fees must be standard or “approved.” This fosters a context where the unusual slowly becomes the norm.
Echoes in Other Industries
- Banking: Overdraft fees and surprise checking account charges have netted billions for banks, sparking repeated class actions and consumer protection lawsuits.
- Airlines: “Baggage fees” and “seat selection fees” sometimes exceed the cost of the base ticket itself, highlighting how “junk fees” can be leveraged to disguise actual total costs.
- Telecommunications: Hidden monthly add-ons for “modem rental,” “network enhancement,” or “regulatory recovery” fees often appear in bills without meaningful explanation.
In each case, an essential or near-essential service is withheld or complicated unless the consumer pays additional charges. The Eversource complaint contends this pattern “is a feature, not a bug” of the modern corporate environment, fueled by a market logic that encourages extracting the maximum possible sum from captive customers.
Corporations’ Dangers to Public Health
While Eversource’s reconnection fee might not immediately conjure images of toxic factories or chemical spills, the health implications of losing electricity can be severe. Without power:
- Vital medical equipment (e.g., oxygen concentrators or dialysis machines) cannot operate.
- Refrigeration for medications or perishable foods is lost.
- The risk of using unsafe heating or cooking methods (like bringing charcoal grills indoors) increases.
From a broader lens, predatory disconnection practices and subsequent reconnection fees thus tie into corporate pollution or “corporations’ dangers to public health” in a metaphorical sense: if the corporate conduct endangers basic living conditions, the health of entire communities is put at risk.
Entrenching Wealth Disparity
Large-scale studies indicate that perpetual fees for reconnection or late payment can trap families in cycles of debt. The Eversource complaint includes an anecdotal dimension: once a customer is behind, they not only have to catch up on the overdue amount but also on the additional reconnection charge. The catch-up payment might be so burdensome that even a small future setback—like a medical bill—could lead to another disconnection. Each cycle piles on further fees, intensifying wealth disparity between the have-littles and the corporate entity reaping profit from their struggles.
In short, the lawsuit posits that these outcomes are not mistakes or oversights. Rather, they are intrinsic to how a private utility might behave when left with minimal accountability. This leads us to the pivotal question of the corporate response: how does Eversource manage consumer blowback, or even public scandal, over such fees?
[7] THE PR PLAYBOOK OF DAMAGE CONTROL
When confronted by controversies—be they lawsuits, public outcry, or investigative journalism—major corporations often resort to a well-tested PR playbook. Even though the Eversource complaint does not detail a specific public relations campaign, broader industry norms suggest how a large utility might respond under fire.
Typical PR Tactics
- Denial or Minimization
A company may first issue statements downplaying the scale of the controversy. For a reconnection fee, it might argue that the charge is “in line with industry standards” or that it offsets “administrative overhead.” Whether true or not, the aim is to reduce public outrage. - Shifting Blame
In some cases, utilities blame regulators or legacy policies for the fee structures. Companies might claim they are merely following rules or that they inherited the fees from a prior regulatory arrangement. - Announcing a ‘Review’
A common corporate response is to say they will internally “review” the fee structure. This can pacify immediate criticism but does not necessarily lead to meaningful reform unless external pressure remains strong. - Token Concessions
Occasionally, a corporation might reduce the reconnection fee in public pronouncements but preserve it in practice, or offer one-time waivers to the most vocal complainants. Such partial measures can alleviate short-term criticism without fixing the systemic issue.
Eversource’s Possible Arguments
Though not confirmed by official statements, one can infer the typical arguments a utility might raise in court filings, press releases, or legislative hearings:
- Claiming ‘Customer Education’: Eversource might argue that it adequately discloses all fees in its online resources or service agreements. The complaint, however, states that any such disclosures are insufficient, buried, or unclear.
- Stressing Cost Recovery: The company could claim that $102 recovers costs of administrative overhead, technology upkeep, or potential site visits. Opponents question whether those claims are inflated or insubstantial, given the remote nature of smart meter disconnections.
- Highlighting Support Programs: Eversource might emphasize that it offers various payment plans or subsidies, and that reconnection fees are waived under certain conditions. The complaint, however, suggests these programs either do not exist or are not widely accessible.
How This Fits Into Corporate Social Responsibility Narratives
Large corporations, including utilities, frequently tout their commitment to corporate social responsibility. Yet, if the allegations in the complaint hold true, Eversource’s practice appears antithetical to that principle. The lawsuit can damage the company’s reputation, indicating that beyond philanthropic gestures or green-energy initiatives, the company imposes hidden burdens on low-income consumers.
Media and Consumer Advocacy Pressure
- Investigative Journalism: Reports, particularly those focusing on personal stories—families who spent days in the dark or faced impossible choices between paying the reconnection fee or buying groceries—can sway public opinion rapidly.
- Consumer Advocacy Groups: Organizations such as the National Consumer Law Center might step in to demand policy changes or highlight the injustice in legislative or regulatory arenas.
- Class Actions: As in this case, legal action itself can become a form of PR pressure. Court proceedings may force Eversource to disclose internal data about costs and profits, potentially undermining any claim that $102 is a fair reflection of operational expenses.
Strategic Silence or Settlements
Some corporations adopt a strategy of saying very little until the litigation concludes. They might quietly negotiate out-of-court settlements or rely on a lengthy legal process to wear down plaintiffs. For instance, if Eversource were to settle, the settlement might involve partial fee refunds or modest changes to its fee schedule—yet it might still never admit wrongdoing. This approach tries to mitigate reputational harm while not setting a precedent that drastically reduces future profits.
In sum, the “PR playbook” is about controlling narrative and containing damage. Yet the viability of these tactics may diminish as consumer awareness grows, especially in an age where social media and online forums amplify outraged voices. If Eversource faces a wave of negative press and public discontent, rhetorical gestures might not suffice to quell the anger. After all, once an issue like a $102 ‘junk fee’ is revealed to be largely profit-driven, it becomes harder to paint it as anything else.
[8] CORPORATE POWER VS. PUBLIC INTEREST
At its core, the Eversource lawsuit is about more than just a single company’s fee structure. It is a test case for how society confronts the persistent tension between corporate power and the public interest. If the allegations are accurate—if a utility can impose burdensome, seemingly arbitrary charges with minimal oversight—what does it say about our broader system?
Points of Tension
- Essential Services Under Private Control
Electricity is so vital that many consider it a human right in modern societies. Placing it under corporate control that prioritizes shareholder returns over affordability can create an inherent conflict with the public interest. - The Inefficacy of Incremental Reform
Even if Eversource were compelled by a court to reduce or remove the reconnection fee, the lawsuit highlights systemic vulnerabilities. Similar issues may crop up in other utilities or states if the underlying neoliberal logic remains intact. - Legal Precedents
If the plaintiffs succeed, it may set a precedent for other jurisdictions, potentially inspiring broader challenges to junk fees or hidden charges in essential services. Alternately, if the lawsuit fails or Eversource prevails, that outcome could embolden utilities to maintain or even raise such fees.
An Ongoing Struggle for Corporate Accountability
Activists and consumers who champion corporate accountability emphasize that reforms often require both legal pressure (as in class actions) and robust public involvement. Regulatory bodies alone, absent public scrutiny, have historically proven too timid or undermanned to police hidden fees effectively.
The backdrop is a growing anti-corporate sentiment among segments of the public who see an unholy marriage between corporate corruption and government acquiescence. Stories like the Eversource reconnection fee reinforce the perception that corporate greed remains unchecked, especially when it targets individuals who are most vulnerable.
Moving Toward Change
The big question is whether the legal system can produce a lasting remedy. The plaintiffs aim for public injunctive relief, essentially forcing Eversource to discontinue or drastically reduce the reconnection fee. Such an injunction would be a real win for consumer rights, protecting thousands of households from paying unwarranted fees in the future. Monetary damages and restitution would also offer some measure of justice for those who have already been burdened by the $102 charge.
Yet, critics like us caution that even if the lawsuit succeeds, the underlying dynamics—lack of competition, weak regulation, shareholder-driven priorities—could spur new forms of exploitation. For instance, if forced to remove the reconnection fee, Eversource might introduce other fees or raise general rates to recoup lost profits. In this sense, real change might require policy overhauls that address the root causes, such as:
- Stricter Regulatory Rules on “junk fees” in all essential services.
- Consumer Representation on utility boards or in regulatory commissions.
- Automatic Caps on reconnection fees pegged to actual, auditable costs.
- Enhanced Public Funding for consumer advocacy, enabling more robust watchdog capabilities.
A Broader Call for Systemic Reform
This lawsuit underscores how neoliberal capitalism has allowed industries to flourish under partial deregulation, only to see exploitative practices slip through the cracks. Unless large-scale reforms occur—ranging from revised utility regulations to changes in corporate governance—critics fear that corporations will continue to exploit the system and impose costly burdens on the poorest and most vulnerable.
The Eversource lawsuit is emblematic of a tension playing out across multiple sectors: companies championing corporate social responsibility while simultaneously imposing harsh fees on those least able to afford them. The complaint’s allegations are scummy: a $102 charge for a service that can be completed instantaneously, with no meaningful explanation of how that figure was determined. If these charges indeed serve no purpose beyond extracting profit from those in dire financial straits, it stands as a troubling testament to how easily corporate power can override public interest when left unchecked.
As readers, advocates, and citizens, it’s essential to recognize that while the Eversource lawsuit focuses on one company in Massachusetts, it resonates with a broader concern that extends far beyond a single jurisdiction or industry. In an era where many corporations exhibit corporate greed, the underlying question is whether we have the means and the will to ensure that vital services like electricity remain accessible and fair. If the allegations in the complaint hold merit, the case against Eversource could become a turning point—shining a light on hidden fees and sparking a movement toward stronger consumer protections, genuine oversight, and a rebalancing of the public’s relationship with essential service providers.
Ultimately, it’s about striking a balance between allowing companies to profit and ensuring that those profits do not come at the cost of human dignity and well-being. If the courts and regulators fail to curtail predatory behavior when it involves something as fundamental as electricity, it’s a stark reminder that the system itself, as critics put it, may be designed to favor exploitation—making that exploitation, indeed, more feature than bug.
We upload 4 new articles on corporate misconduct every single day! To read them as they come out, visit:
Evil Corporations neglecting safety protocols to cut costs, risking consumer harm for higher profits: https://evilcorporations.org/category/product-safety-violations/
Evil Corporations deliberately contaminating ecosystems to avoid expenses, prioritizing greed over sustainability: https://evilcorporations.org/category/environmental-violations/
Evil Corporations exploiting workers through unsafe conditions and unfair wages to maximize corporate gains: https://evilcorporations.org/category/labor-exploitation/
Evil Corporations recklessly mishandling or exploiting personal data, prioritizing profit over user security and consent, often exposing individuals to harm or manipulation: https://evilcorporations.org/category/data-breach-privacy/
Evil Corporations manipulating records to mislead stakeholders, enabling illicit wealth accumulation and systemic corruption: https://evilcorporations.org/category/financial-fraud/
Evil Corporations deceiving consumers with false claims to manipulate demand and conceal product risks: https://evilcorporations.org/category/misleading-marketing/
Evil Corporations doing corporate misconduct that doesn’t neatly fit into the earlier mentioned categories: https://evilcorporations.org/category/misc/
