IGS Energy Lawsuit: Class Action, Gurganus, and FirstEnergy Case

If you’re looking into an IGS Energy lawsuit, here’s where things stand: the law firm Tycko and Zavareei LLP has an open class action investigation into IGS Energy’s pricing and billing practices, but no class action has been filed or certified yet. Separately, IGS lost a published California appellate ruling in an employment case in September 2025, and the company was a lead complainant in an Ohio regulatory case that produced a $275 million settlement against FirstEnergy in December 2025. Individual consumer complaints against IGS run into the hundreds, but most have not turned into court cases.

The Class Action Investigation Into IGS Energy

Tycko and Zavareei LLP has publicly announced a class action investigation into IGS Energy. The firm alleges that customers have been charged rates “significantly higher than market averages” and that the company may have engaged in deceptive pricing or unfair billing practices. The firm is currently soliciting accounts from current and former IGS Energy customers.

Two things to be clear about. First, an investigation is not a lawsuit. No complaint has been filed in court, and no class has been certified, so there is nothing yet to join in the formal sense. Second, if the investigation does become a case, the customers whose accounts helped build it are usually the ones best positioned as named plaintiffs.

What Customers Are Complaining About

The complaints driving the investigation echo what shows up on consumer review sites. IGS Energy carries a 1.19 out of 5 average on the Better Business Bureau across 136 reviews¹ and a 2.0 out of 5 on PA Energy Ratings across 66 reviews, 60 of them one-star.²

Recurring allegations include:

Door-to-door sales representatives who allegedly misidentify themselves as employees of the customer’s current utility.
Enrollment in supply contracts customers say they never authorized.
Variable rates that climb well above what competing suppliers charge.
Difficulty canceling, and early termination fees ranging from $99 to $199.²¹

Solar customers have their own set of complaints. One consumer reported that total utility payments rose by $50 to $90 per month after solar panel installation rather than falling. Another said their roof began leaking after installation and was quoted $200 per panel to have the panels removed for repairs. A third described being locked into an inherited IGS solar contract after buying a home, with no route to exit.² On the BBB, a customer alleged that IGS Solar and installation partner Momentum Solar refused to honor a complimentary panel removal and reinstall benefit promised at the time of sale, later citing a “voucher” requirement the customer said was never disclosed.¹ No class action or lawsuit targeting IGS Solar specifically has been identified in court records.

A Pennsylvania Ruling Shows the Regulatory Limits

One customer dispute has produced a formal ruling, and it’s worth understanding what that ruling did and didn’t do. In Pennsylvania, Gery Jakub filed a complaint with the state Public Utility Commission (Docket No. C-2023-3037638) alleging his natural gas supplier was switched from Dominion Energy to IGS without his permission after IGS acquired Dominion’s retail gas accounts, and that he was billed at a higher variable rate as a result.³

An administrative law judge denied the complaint on September 10, 2023. The judge found IGS had provided proper notice of the acquisition and supplier switch in April 2022, and held that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to regulate rates charged by competitive gas suppliers or to order refunds, because those rates are governed by private contract.³ The takeaway for consumers: a state utility commission is often the wrong forum for a pricing complaint against a competitive supplier, which is one reason class litigation is the route being explored.

Gurganus v. IGS Solutions: The Employment Ruling

The most consequential court decision naming IGS in recent years is an employment case. Sarah Gurganus, a former employee, filed suit in Solano County Superior Court on September 1, 2023, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, retaliation and interference under the California Family Rights Act, wrongful termination, and unlawful business practices.⁴

IGS moved to compel arbitration under an agreement Gurganus signed in February 2022. The trial court refused, and on September 25, 2025, the California Court of Appeal affirmed in a published opinion.⁵ Reading the arbitration agreement together with a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement signed the same day, the appellate court found both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Employee claims had to go to arbitration, but IGS reserved the right to sue in court and seek injunctive relief without posting a bond or proving actual damages. The confidentiality provision was so broad it effectively barred the employee from conducting informal discovery or interviewing witnesses.⁴ The court declined to sever the offending terms, holding the agreements were “permeated” with unconscionability.⁶ Because the opinion is certified for publication, it is binding precedent in California.

When IGS Is the One Filing: The FirstEnergy Case

Not every case involving IGS is one where the company is defending itself. In PUCO Case 17-0974-EL-UNC, an audit of FirstEnergy’s Ohio utilities, IGS was a complainant. It filed testimony seeking a forfeiture exceeding $100 million, alleging FirstEnergy had improperly cross-subsidized non-electric product sales (roughly $59 million) and allocated $10 million or more in lobbying costs tied to Ohio’s House Bill 6 scandal to its regulated utilities.⁷

The PUCO ruled on November 19, 2025, that FirstEnergy’s Ohio utilities had violated state law, PUCO regulations, and PUCO orders, and ordered $250.70 million in restitution and forfeitures.⁸ A month later, on December 19, 2025, FirstEnergy announced a settlement with multiple parties including IGS: $275 million to Ohio customers, made up of $250 million in restitution and refunds to be credited to bills in 2026, plus $25 million for low-income assistance, weatherization, and energy efficiency programs.⁹ The PUCO approved the settlement on January 7, 2026.

Who IGS Energy Is Now

If you signed up with a different supplier and want to know whether you’re now an IGS customer, the corporate footprint has grown quickly. IGS Energy completed its acquisition of Just Energy in July 2025 after receiving early termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust waiting period from the Federal Trade Commission in May 2025.¹⁰¹¹ Just Energy continues to operate under its existing brands, including Hudson Energy, Amigo Energy, and Tara Energy. The combined company serves nearly 7.5 million residential customer equivalents and employs about 2,250 people.

If your complaint concerns rates or billing on an IGS account, and you’d like it considered as part of the pending class action investigation, contact Tycko and Zavareei directly. Keep your contracts, bills showing the rate charged, and any recording or notes from the original sales call, because those are the documents a plaintiffs’ firm will ask to see first.

1
Better Business Bureau. IGS Energy Customer Reviews
2
PA Energy Ratings. IGS Energy Customer Reviews
3
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Jakub v. Peoples Natural Gas and IGS Energy, Docket No. C-2023-3037638
4
Justia Law. Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC, No. A170738
5
California Courts. Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC, No. A170738
6
FindLaw. Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC
7
Energy Choice Matters. IGS Energy Seeks $100 Million Forfeiture Against FirstEnergy Ohio Utilities
8
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. HB 6 Investigation
9
FirstEnergy Corp. Settlement Reached in Multiple PUCO FirstEnergy Proceedings
10
PR Newswire. IGS Energy Completes Just Energy Acquisition
11
Federal Trade Commission. Early Termination Notice 20251167