> On the surface level this absolutely does appear to fall under "Price Gouging during a crisis" No, no, no, no, this is absurd. You can't sue energy markets f

> On the surface level this absolutely does appear to fall under "Price Gouging during a crisis" No, no, no, no, this is absurd. You can't sue energy markets for "price gouging" when spot prices shoot up. Do you sue your broker for price gouging when there is a price spike in a stock? What about wheat? If you don't want to be exposed to spot pricing, don't play in the spot markets. This is why energy consumers are historically kept out of spot energy markets and instead get their energy from utilities. The utilities offer stable pricing but in exchange the long run price you pay is higher -- you are paying for that stability. The whole point of griddy is that instead of getting your power from a regulated utility which must get government approval of price hikes, you think you can do better by being charged market spot prices. It's true that market pricing is usually below the fixed prices charged by utilities but at the same time you bear the risk of spikes. Thus to call this "price gouging" is absurd as griddy does not choose prices administratively but passes on the spot price to their consumers. That's the whole point of griddy. These people signed up to be exposed to the market price in order to be free of stable pricing, as administrative pricing is higher, on average, than volatile spot pricing. They had no problem enjoying the cost savings when market prices were lower, but now they want to sue when market prices shot up? If you can't handle the volatility of spot markets, then don't sign up for services like griddy and go with regular utilities that have administrative pricing.