Consumer group CHOICE has submitted its first designated complaint to the ACCC, asking the regulator to investigate energy retailers for potentially misleading consumers through how they describe and promote their plans.
"It shouldn't be this hard to know if you're being ripped off on your energy bill. That's why CHOICE is making its first official 'super complaint' to the ACCC about the way energy retailers are describing energy plans. We're calling on the ACCC to enforce the law with strong court action to put an end to these dodgy practices costing consumers money," says CHOICE CEO, Ashley de Silva.
As part of the complaint, CHOICE collected almost 400 energy bills from supporters between January and March 2025. The analysis revealed many retailers were reusing identical names for energy plans, despite offering them at different prices. This could be seen on bills in the 'Could you save money on another plan?' section, which retailers are required to include in bills to customers.
Several bills informed consumers they could save money by switching to a plan with the same name as their existing plan. Many consumers reading this information were led to believe they were already on the best plan because the names were identical, potentially missing out on savings as a result.
"Amongst the energy bills we collected, we found 64 examples of retailers telling consumers to switch to a plan with the same name. Across these 64 examples, people could have saved an average of $171 annually had they switched to the cheaper plan, even though it had the same name. The highest potential savings amongst these examples was $588 per year," says de Silva.
Latest Stories
"The potential impact of this practice is significant. CHOICE estimates that reusing identical names for plans with differing prices could, in aggregate, be costing consumers approximately $65 million in savings.”
Researchers found 64 bills told people they could save money by switching to a plan with an identical name but different prices. Across the 64 bills using identical plan names, people could have saved on average $171 per year if they had switched.
"This practice is extremely confusing, and potentially misleading or deceptive. Supporters who shared their bills with CHOICE often thought that the offer to save money by switching to a plan with an identical name was a mistake, and likely missed out on significant savings," says de Silva.
"The energy market is confusing enough without energy retailers using dodgy tactics that make it nearly impossible for consumers to know if they're getting a good deal. At a time when we're all looking for ways to save, energy companies are making it harder and harder to know what you're paying and why.”
As part of the complaint, CHOICE is asking the ACCC to investigate whether energy retailers are breaking the law by using identical names for energy plans, despite offering them at different prices, using names and descriptions that refer to 'savings' for poor-value plans, and telling consumers to switch to plans that do not appear to be available, or the customer is not eligible for.
"CHOICE can only submit one designated complaint each year, and much like the Shonky Awards, we only use it for the most serious issues we see. We are calling on the ACCC to urgently investigate these sneaky tactics used by energy retailers to confuse and potentially mislead consumers," says de Silva.
