SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Washington, DC Case Summary
Client Earth v. Washington Gas Light Co.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 23-CV-0826
Decided: September 4, 2025
Court of Appeals confirms that persons subject to regulation by the Public Service Commission cannot be sued in a private right of action under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act in the District of Columbia.
Background
Plaintiffs are a group of public interest organizations. They sued a utility company in the District of Columbia, claiming that it violated the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant violated the Act by making false and misleading statements about the environmental impacts of its natural gas. Defendant filed a Motion to dismiss.
The Trial Court dismissed the Complaint. It held that the text of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act did not authorize a private right of action by Plaintiffs against those organizations regulated by the Public Service Commission. The Trial Court also held that precedent from the Court of Appeals’ decision in Gomez v. Indep. Mgmt. of Delaware, Inc., bound the Court to recognize certain exemptions for those organizations regulated by the Public Service Commission. Plaintiffs appealed.
Holding
The Court of Appeals began its analysis by reviewing the text of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. In doing so, it found that the plain text of the Act did not immunize organizations like Defendant from suit by private actors. Instead, it held that two provisions of the Act were silent as to whether private entities like Plaintiff could sue for violations. D.C. Code § 28-3903(c)(2) had no application since it only states that the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection may not apply the provisions of Section 28-3905 to, among others, persons subject to regulation by the Public Service Commission. Since this specifically referenced the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection, the language of the statute did not prevent private actors from suing in the Superior Court. The Court found support for this reading by reviewing Section 28-3905(k). That section specifically authorizes several groups to sue under the Act, and there was nothing in that section that prevented groups like Plaintiffs from suing.
Despite this textual analysis, the Court of Appeals held that it remained constrained by its precedent in Gomez, and that the dismissal of the suit against Defendant remained proper at this time. The three-judge panel hearing this case noted that it could not overrule the decision in Gomez because only en banc review by the Court of Appeals could overturn the precedent. The Gomez Court had held that the Act’s legislative history, and a review of then-recent amendments to the Act, did not have the effect of expanding the Act to those persons regulated by the Public Service Commission. The Gomez Court held that the deletion of the phrase “within the jurisdiction of the Department” from the statute could not be read as having the effect of expanding the Act to allow more entities to be sued.
The Court of Appeals did, however, acknowledge that the Gomez decision was at odds with the Act’s plain text. On this point, the author of the majority Opinion also authored a concurring Opinion saying exactly that, and emphasizing that the Court should sit en banc and “should overrule Gomez, recommit itself to the plain text reading of the CPPA, and return to the Council the power to legislate who may or may not be sued thereunder.”
Questions about this case can be directed to Matt Ainsley at (202) 945-9506 or mainsley@tthlaw.com.