The Smith v. FirstEnergy settlement is a $49 million class-action resolution approved in the Southern District of Ohio that compensated roughly two million Ohio electricity customers whose bills were tied to House Bill 6, the 2019 law at the center of the state’s largest corruption scandal. FirstEnergy contributed $37.5 million and Energy Harbor paid $11.5 million. After attorney’s fees of about $13 million, individual class members received payments of $10 to $20, distributed mostly as digital prepaid cards.1Cleveland.com. Here’s Why FirstEnergy Class Action Members Got Digital Payments Instead of Settlement Checks2Bloomberg Law. FirstEnergy, Others to Pay $49 Million to Settle Bribery Suit
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The case, captioned Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp., Case No. 2:20-cv-3755 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleged that FirstEnergy and Energy Harbor ran a racketeering scheme that inflated the electricity bills of Ohio customers.
The underlying conduct is now well documented in federal court. FirstEnergy funneled roughly $60 million through a 501(c)(4) dark-money entity called Generation Now to install Larry Householder as Ohio House Speaker and pass House Bill 6 in July 2019.3U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. United States v. Householder and Borges HB 6 created a ratepayer-funded subsidy worth about $1.3 billion for two aging nuclear plants and two 1950s-era coal plants, and rolled back the state’s energy-efficiency and renewable-energy standards. FirstEnergy separately admitted paying a $4.3 million bribe to Sam Randazzo, then chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, for favorable regulatory treatment.4Common Cause Ohio. A Cycle of Corruption: A Timeline of the Householder HB6 Scandal The class action drew a straight line from that conduct to charges on customers’ bills.
Who Was in the Class and What They Received
The settlement class covered customers of three FirstEnergy utilities in Ohio: Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and Toledo Edison. To qualify, a customer had to have paid rates or fees connected to HB 6 between January 1, 2020, and June 22, 2022.5FOX 8 Cleveland. Check the Mail: FirstEnergy Settlement Payouts on the Way
Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. granted final approval of the deal.2Bloomberg Law. FirstEnergy, Others to Pay $49 Million to Settle Bribery Suit Payments to individual class members were small. With roughly two million eligible customers, and after attorney’s fees of about $13 million came off the top of the $49 million fund, each qualifying customer’s share worked out to $10 to $20. The administrator sent payments largely as digital prepaid cards rather than paper checks, a choice made to preserve as much of the fund as possible for class members instead of postage and printing.1Cleveland.com. Here’s Why FirstEnergy Class Action Members Got Digital Payments Instead of Settlement Checks
How It Compares to Other HB 6 Recoveries
The $49 million class settlement is one of several pots of money returned to Ohio because of the HB 6 scheme. If you have heard about payments or bill credits from FirstEnergy and are trying to figure out which one you received, the amounts and mechanisms are different.
In July 2021, FirstEnergy entered a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio, acknowledging a charge of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud and agreeing to pay a $230 million penalty. Half went to the U.S. Treasury; the other half went to the Ohio Development Service Agency for the benefit of Ohio utility customers.6FirstEnergy Corp. FirstEnergy Reaches Agreement to Resolve Department of Justice Investigation That money did not flow to customers as individual class payments.
A larger consumer recovery came from a state regulatory track. In November 2025 the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio found that Ohio Edison, The Illuminating Company, and Toledo Edison had violated state law and prior Commission orders, and ordered $250.7 million in restitution and civil forfeitures. FirstEnergy and consumer groups then negotiated a settlement, approved by the PUCO on January 8, 2026, that totaled $275 million and redirected the portion that would otherwise have gone to the state’s General Revenue Fund back to ratepayers.7PUCO. HB6 Investigations8FirstEnergy Investor Relations. PUCO Approves FirstEnergy Settlement Delivering Customer Benefits Of that total, $250 million goes to customers as bill credits, $5 million is reserved for additional residential credits, and $20 million funds low-income bill assistance, weatherization, and energy-efficiency programs, with priority in Mahoning, Ashtabula, Lucas, Marion, and Cuyahoga counties.9Ohio House of Representatives. Rep. Brennan Applauds HB 6-Related FirstEnergy Settlement Delivering $276 Million in Consumer Relief to Ohioans A typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month can expect roughly $65.61 in bill credits spread across three billing cycles that began in February 2026.10City of Lakewood, Ohio. FirstEnergy Customers to Receive Credits as Part of PUCO Settlement
So a bill credit that showed up in early 2026 is the PUCO settlement, not Smith. The Smith payments were the earlier digital prepaid cards.
What HB 6 Still Costs Customers
The law that generated the lawsuit has been only partially unwound. In March 2021, Governor Mike DeWine signed HB 128, which repealed HB 6’s nuclear subsidies and the “decoupling” revenue guarantee that had benefited FirstEnergy.11American Nuclear Society. Ohio Bill Repealing Nuclear Subsidies Heads to Governor’s Desk The coal-plant subsidies and the weakened efficiency standards were not repealed. Ohio ratepayers had paid more than $400 million toward the coal subsidies as of early 2025, with the total projected to approach $1 billion by 2030 if the provisions remain. House Bill 15 and Senate Bill 2, which would end the remaining subsidies, were in committee in early 2025 with the backing of House Speaker Matt Huffman and Governor DeWine.12Ohio Capital Journal. In Ohio, Another Attempt to Repeal HB 6 Coal Subsidies
A Note on the Smith-Goshen Case
A separate Ohio class action with “Smith” in its name, the Smith-Goshen Royalty Class Action, Case No. 2:21-cv-3999 in the Southern District of Ohio, has no connection to FirstEnergy or HB 6. It involves oil and gas royalty claims against Rice Drilling and EQT Production Company on leases in Belmont County, and reached a settlement of approximately $22 million with checks mailed to class members on June 5, 2026.13Schneider Downs. Smith-Goshen Royalty Class Action Website14Mealey’s Litigation Report. Mineral Rights Owners Seek Approval of Class Settlement Worth More Than $22.08M If you received a settlement check tied to mineral rights on a Belmont County lease, that is the Smith-Goshen case, not Smith v. FirstEnergy.