Richards v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC

915 F.3d 88

Opinions

Debra Ann Livingston, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Gary W. Richards ("Richards") entered into an electricity contract with Defendant-Appellee Direct Energy Services, LLC ("Direct Energy"). The contract provided that, for the first twelve months, Direct Energy would guarantee Richards a fixed electricity rate that was 10% below the state-approved rate. But if Richards did not leave the contract at the end of that year, Direct Energy would begin charging him a new variable rate. The variable rate, according to the contract, would be set on a month to month basis according to Direct Energy's "discretion" and would reflect "business and market conditions." J.A. 157. Richards was free to terminate the contract at any time without paying a penalty. After twelve months on the discounted fixed rate plan, Richards began paying the variable rate. During this time, the variable rate was two cents more per kilowatt hour ("kWh") than the state-approved rate. Richards switched electricity providers after fifteen months with Direct Energy (twelve on the discounted fixed rate, three on the variable rate), complaining that the variable rate was set too high. He then sued Direct Energy for breach of contract, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment, and also sought to represent a class of all Direct Energy customers who paid the variable rate in Connecticut and Massachusetts. The district court dismissed several of his claims and granted summary judgment to Direct Energy as to the rest.

This is the latest in a line of class actions challenging consumer gas and electricity rates in the wake of market deregulation.¹ Richards's principal claim is that Direct Energy breached its contract with Richards and violated state unfair and deceptive trade practices law by not pegging its variable rate to Direct Energy's procurement costs. We disagree. By the contract's plain terms, Direct Energy promised that the variable rate would be set in its discretion and that it would reflect "business and *93market conditions," a phrase which encompasses more than just procurement costs. Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background²

A

This is a contract dispute set in the context of Connecticut's electricity market. ISO New England, Inc. is responsible for administering a market in which local electricity distribution companies bid on electricity supplied by power generators. In Connecticut, two electric distribution companies, Eversource and United Illuminating, maintain monopoly control over electricity distribution systems within set geographic zones and are ultimately responsible for distributing electricity to consumers in those zones. Consumers may enter into electricity contracts with either company directly. All these contracts offer electricity at "Standard Service Rates," which Connecticut's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority ("PURA") approves in advance. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-19(a).

In 2000, Connecticut deregulated its consumer electricity market. Consumers may still purchase electricity from either Eversource or United Illuminating at their PURA-approved Standard Service Rates (effectively a public option), but they may instead choose to contract with one of the forty PURA-licensed retail electricity suppliers (the private market), all of which piggyback on Eversource and United Illuminating's electricity distribution systems. These suppliers purchase power that they then sell to consumers at market-based, unregulated rates. Many offer variable prices, promotional rates, guarantees that energy will come from renewables, and incentives like cash rebates and gift cards. Some suppliers also include "guaranteed savings" provisions in their contracts, which ensure that consumers will save money compared to the Standard Service Rates. In general, the Standard Service Rates tend to adjust more slowly in response to changes in the wholesale electricity market than market rates.

Although PURA does not regulate suppliers' rates, it regulates the suppliers themselves. PURA licenses all private electricity suppliers, id. § 16-245(a)-(b), and reviews these licenses every five years, Conn. Agency Regs. § 16-245-2(f). It also polices how suppliers word their consumer contracts. Among other things, these contracts must contain:

• "all material terms of the agreement";

• "a clear and conspicuous statement explaining the rates that [ea]ch customer will be paying, including the circumstances under which the rates may change";

• "a clear and conspicuous statement ... describing any penalty for early termination of such contract"; and

• "a statement that provides specific directions to the customer as to how to compare the price term in the contract to the customer's existing ... charge on the electric bill and how long those rates are guaranteed."

*94Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-245o(f)(2). Finally, Connecticut's state government helps maintain an electricity-comparison website that lists available electricity suppliers and compares electricity suppliers' rates and other relevant contract terms to each other and to the default Standard Service Rates.³

B

Direct Energy is a private electricity supplier that offers several different electricity plans to consumers in the private market. Some of its plans come with add-ons, like an Internet-connected Nest thermostat, a home warranty, or a guarantee that 100% of the energy will come from "green" sources. During the time at issue in this case, all of Direct Energy's plans were "Evergreen plans," meaning that Direct Energy would charge a fixed rate for a set time (between twelve and thirty-six months), and at the end of that period, if the customer took no action, Direct Energy would charge a variable rate that could change each month.

Direct Energy balanced several factors when setting the variable rate. In general, Direct Energy targeted a certain profit margin based on its own cost of energy while not setting the rate so high that customers would leave. Competitors' prices, market-share objectives, supply hedging strategies, legislative and regulatory requirements, and market risk helped inform these factors. Direct Energy's variable rate was higher than its fixed rate, so when a customer switched to the variable rate, Direct Energy often reduced the customer's variable rate for the first few months to smooth the transition. At one point, more than half of Direct Energy's Connecticut customers were paying the variable rate.

In March 2012, Gary Richards signed a two-page electricity contract with Direct Energy guaranteeing him a fixed electricity rate of 7.45 cents per kWh for one year. This was an Evergreen plan, so after the year expired, Richards's "service [would] automatically continue each month without additional notice, and [Richards] [would] pay a variable rate per kWh, which [could] be higher or lower each monthly billing cycle." J.A. 157. The contract further stated:

After the Initial Term and during the Renewal Period, the rate for electricity will be variable each month at Direct Energy's discretion. The rate may be higher or lower each month based upon business and market conditions.

Id. We refer to this as "the Evergreen clause." Richards could cancel the contract "at any time without an early cancellation fee." Id. These terms were all included on the first page of the contract, and PURA had earlier determined that this contract was sufficiently clear and fulfilled all the requirements mandated by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-245o(f)(2).

After using the Connecticut government's electricity-comparison website mentioned above, Richards chose Direct Energy because it promised "the best fixed rate that [he] could get at the time" and no termination fee. J.A. 121. He did not consider any other factors, nor did he have any expectations about how the variable rate would work. But he still paid attention to his electricity rate during the fixed-rate period and compared rates on the Connecticut electricity website several times. At one point, he tried to switch electricity providers to get a better fixed rate, but the *95new provider never followed up on his inquiries.

Richards ultimately stayed on the Direct Energy contract through the full twelve months, did not opt out at the end, and so was rolled over onto the variable rate, which he paid for three months starting in April 2013. For those three months, the variable rate stayed constant at 10.64 cents per kwH, or 2.36 cents per kWh higher than Eversource's PURA-approved Standard Service Rate during this time.⁴ There is no evidence in the record that Direct Energy's variable rate was higher than the rates charged by Direct Energy's market competitors. Direct Energy's procurement costs were also largely constant during this three-month period.

In August 2013, Richards noticed that his electricity bills had risen compared to previous months, so he canceled his contract with Direct Energy and switched electricity providers. Over the course of the fixed-rate period, Richards paid $114 less than he would have under Eversource's Standard Service Rate. But his three months on the variable rate eliminated those savings. In total, for the fifteen months he signed with Direct Energy, Richards, a former Vice President for AT&T, paid $25 more than he would have under the Standard Service Rate-or about $1.67 per month extra.

Richards submitted a letter to PURA complaining about Direct Energy in March 2014. Shortly after, Robert Izard, an attorney who has filed lawsuits like this one against other electricity suppliers, see, e.g. , Edwards v. N. Am. Power & Gas, LLC , 120 F.Supp.3d 132 (D. Conn. 2015), contacted Richards and encouraged him to sue. Richards then retained Izard to represent him in this case.

II. Procedural History

In November 2014, Richards sued Direct Energy in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bolden, J. ) alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a), and the Massachusetts Regulation of Business Practices for Consumers' Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 1. He sought to certify a class of similarly situated Direct Energy customers who lived in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Most of his allegations concerned Direct Energy's variable rate beginning in the winter of 2013-2014-well after Richards left Direct Energy. Starting in that (unusually cold) winter, the variable rate jumped by about 50% and stayed level through August 2015. Generally, the variable rate was about 75% higher than Direct Energy's procurement costs, which fluctuated significantly, but the variable rate was lower than its procurement costs during the 2013-2014 winter. Direct Energy thus kept variable rates steady through 2014 (and into 2015) to recover from its winter losses. Many other electricity companies never recovered from their winter losses and went out of business.

The district court dismissed Richards's Massachusetts state law and Connecticut unjust enrichment claims on August 4, 2015. See Richards v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC , 120 F.Supp.3d 148 (D. Conn. 2015). Because Richards is a Connecticut resident who was injured in Connecticut and not Massachusetts, the court concluded that Richards lacked Article III standing to bring an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim under Massachusetts law. Richards also failed to state a claim for *96unjust enrichment because "[a] plaintiff ... cannot plead a claim of unjust enrichment if he also pleads the existence of an express contract," as Richards had. Id. at 165.

During discovery, the parties produced dueling expert witness reports. As relevant here, Richards's experts, economists who had been retained to produce expert witness reports in prior class actions like this one, opined that Direct Energy's variable rate should be "consistent with" Direct Energy's procurement costs, "plus an appropriate margin to cover the legitimate costs and risks of supplying Variable Rate customers." Confidential App. 44. At the same time, the experts made clear that they did not "offer an opinion on" how the Evergreen clause should be interpreted. Id. at 374; see also id. at 164 ("I'm not the expert on, you know, legal meaning of business and market conditions. But as an economist, you know, I do have an opinion professionally...."). Their conclusions were purportedly based on, as one put it, "[their] personal economic belief of what is reasonable," given their knowledge of the electricity market. Id. at 374.

The district court granted summary judgment to Direct Energy on Richards's remaining claims on March 31, 2017. See Richards v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC , 246 F.Supp.3d 538 (D. Conn. 2017). Direct Energy was entitled to summary judgment on Richards's contract claim, the district court concluded, because Richards had not "put forth sufficient evidence to create a material factual dispute about Direct Energy's bad faith," as required for his claim based on an alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id. at 557.

The district court also granted summary judgment to Direct Energy on Richards's unfair and deceptive trade practices claims under Connecticut law. Richards had argued that the Evergreen clause was deceptive because a reasonable consumer would interpret it to mean that Direct Energy would charge consumers its procurement costs, plus a fixed profit margin. The district court disagreed and held that the clause plainly gave Direct Energy "discretion to set a profit margin of its choosing when determining variable rates." Id. at 552. Next, Richards contended that his contract with Direct Energy failed adequately to explain "the circumstances under which the rates [could] change," which if true, would be a per se unfair trade practice. Id. at 555 (quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-245o(f)(2) ), see also Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-245o(j). The district court rejected this argument because PURA had approved the contract language at issue. Finally, Richards argued that Direct Energy set the variable rate so high as to be "unfair" under Connecticut law. Not so, the district court held, because "pricing decisions alone" do not constitute unfair trade practices. Id. at 554.

Finally, the district court dismissed Richards's motion for class certification as moot because it had dismissed or granted summary judgment on all of Richards's claims. Final judgment was entered on March 31, 2017.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Richards challenges the district court's March 31, 2017 grant of summary judgment to Direct Energy on his contract and Connecticut unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, and its August 4, 2015 dismissal of his unjust enrichment and Massachusetts unfair trade practices claims. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I

"We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, examining the evidence *97in the light most favorable to, and drawing all inferences in favor of, the non-movant." Blackman v. New York City Transit Auth. , 491 F.3d 95, 98 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Sheppard v. Beerman , 317 F.3d 351, 354 (2d Cir. 2003) ). "Summary judgment is appropriate only if it can be established 'that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Sheppard , 317 F.3d at 354-55 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ).

Richards argues that Direct Energy breached its contract with him because it violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Under Connecticut law, the implied covenant attaches to every contract and "requir[es] that neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement." Renaissance Mgmt. Co. v. Connecticut Hous. Fin. Auth. , 281 Conn. 227, 915 A.2d 290, 297-98 (2007) (quoting De La Concha of Hartford, Inc. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 269 Conn. 424, 849 A.2d 382, 388 (2004) ). The covenant is thus "not implicated by conduct that does not impair contractual rights." Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co. , 308 Conn. 760, 67 A.3d 961, 987 (2013).

To establish a breach of the implied covenant, the plaintiff must also show that the defendants' allegedly wrongful acts were "taken in bad faith." De La Concha , 849 A.2d at 388 (quoting Alexandru v. Strong , 81 Conn.App. 68, 837 A.2d 875, 883 (2004) ). "Bad faith in general implies both actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive." Id. (quoting Habetz v. Condon , 224 Conn. 231, 618 A.2d 501, 504 (1992) ). Because this is a high bar, "[t]he covenant will be breached only in a narrow range of cases." Sec. Plans, Inc. v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc. , 769 F.3d 807, 817 (2d Cir. 2014) ; see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 cmt. e (Am. Law Inst. 1981) (listing, as paradigmatic examples of such breaches, "harassing demands for assurances of performance, rejection of performance for unstated reasons, willful failure to mitigate damages, and abuse of a power to determine compliance or to terminate the contract").

Richards's contention that Direct Energy breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ultimately rests on his interpretation of the Evergreen clause. Again, the clause states:

After the Initial Term and during the Renewal Period, the rate for electricity will be variable each month at Direct Energy's discretion. The rate may be higher or lower each month based upon business and market conditions.

J.A. 157. In Richards's view, "a reasonable consumer would understand [this] contract language to mean that [the] variable rate[ ] would fluctuate with [Direct Energy's] procurement costs." Pl.-Appellant Br. 54. And because the variable rate stayed constant while procurement costs fluctuated from the winter of 2013-2014 through August 2015, Direct Energy "ignored the language of the contract." Id. at 55. Richards contends that, at minimum, his two experts attested that a reasonable consumer would interpret the Evergreen clause this way, which raises a plausible question of fact as to the clause's appropriate interpretation. He also maintains that Direct Energy acted in bad faith because Direct Energy set its variable rates too high, and "lure[d] new customers into enrolling ... by offering low fixed teaser rates for a set period *98of time." Id. at 20. For the following reasons, we disagree.

Direct Energy did not "evade[ ] [the contract's] spirit" or frustrate Richards's "justified expectations." Landry v. Spitz , 102 Conn.App. 34, 925 A.2d 334, 345 (2007). The Evergreen clause states that Direct Energy had "discretion" to set the variable rate "based upon business and market conditions." J.A. 157. The record reflects that Direct Energy set the variable rate to achieve a target profit margin, match competitors' prices, and reduce customer losses, among other objectives. As a matter of plain meaning, these sorts of considerations constitute "business and market conditions." See, e.g. , Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining "business" as "[a] commercial enterprise carried on for profit " and "market" as "the extent of economic demand " (emphasis added) ); see also U.C.C. § 2-723(1) (Am. Law Inst. & Unif. Law Comm'n 2017) (explaining that, in calculating damages in the contracts context, "market price ... shall be determined according to the [prevailing] price of such goods" (emphasis added) ). The Evergreen clause in no way states or implies that such considerations are improper, nor does it suggest that the variable rate bears a direct relationship to Direct Energy's procurement costs.

Richards's experts' testimony adds nothing to his breach of contract claim. These experts opined only on what factors the variable rate should reflect, in their view, while declining to "offer an opinion on" how the Evergreen clause should be interpreted . Confidential App. 374; see also id. at 164 ("I'm not the expert on, you know, legal meaning of business and market conditions. But as an economist, you know, I do have an opinion professionally...."). And the experts' interpretation of the Evergreen clause would be irrelevant even if they had opined on its legal meaning because "the construction of unambiguous contract terms is strictly a judicial function." 31A Am. Jur. 2d Expert and Opinion Evidence § 294 (2018) (explaining that, "unless the words or phrases [in a contract] ... are terms of art," expert testimony "regarding the meanings of contractual provisions [is] irrelevant and hence inadmissible").⁵ Courts across the country have thus rightly dismissed arguments like Richards's even at the pleadings phase.⁶

*99To be sure, even though the Evergreen clause gave Direct Energy discretion in setting the variable rate, Direct Energy was obliged to "exercise that discretion in good faith." 23 Williston on Contracts § 63:22 (4th ed. 2018). Richards has come forth with no evidence to suggest that it did not. Although Richards charges, for instance, that Direct Energy's variable rate was "too high," there is no evidence that it was any higher than its competitors' rates. See Marcus Dairy, Inc. v. Rollin Dairy Corp. , No. 05-cv-589, 2008 WL 4425954, at *9 (D. Conn. Sept. 24, 2008) ("To determine if a price is commercially reasonable[ ] it must be compared to the range of other prices in the market."). The factors influencing the variable rate (minimizing customer losses, reaching a target profit margin) are ordinary business considerations. See id. at *7 (stating that merchants act in good faith when setting open price terms if they adhere to "reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade" (quoting U.C.C. § 2-305 cmt. 3 (Am. Law Inst. & Unif. Law Comm'n 2017) ) ). And Richards in fact seems to concede that all Connecticut private electricity suppliers "engag[e] in similar ... pricing behavior," which he insistently labels "improper" while offering no coherent explanation (much less evidence) as to why this is so. Reply Br. 17 n.12.

Richards counters that Direct Energy must have abused its discretion because the variable rate was higher than the PURA-approved Standard Service Rate. In his view, the Standard Service Rates, rather than Direct Energy's private competitors' rates, are the proper comparators because Connecticut's private electricity suppliers are all "corrupt." Reply 17 n.12. But it is worth pausing to consider the implications of Richards's argument. If we were to hold private electricity suppliers liable for departing from the Standard Service Rates, we would in effect make those PURA-approved rates binding on private electricity suppliers like Direct Energy. Yet the entire point of electricity deregulation was to allow the market, rather than PURA, to determine rates.⁷ Richards's near-frivolous contract claim provides no basis on which a court is authorized to overrule this policy choice.

Richards's accusation that Direct Energy violated the implied covenant of good faith by "luring new customers ... by offering low fixed teaser rates," Pl.-Appellant Br. 20, is equally unavailing. Richards may find this practice objectionable, but he received exactly what he bargained for: after paying a fixed rate below the PURA-approved Standard Service Rates for a fixed time, Richards would pay a variable rate set at Direct Energy's discretion. See 23 Williston on Contracts § 63:22 (4th ed. 2018) ("[T]here can be no breach of the implied promise or covenant of good faith and fair dealing where the contract expressly permits the actions being challenged, and the defendant acts in *100accordance with the express terms of the contract."). Richards voluntarily chose this contract after considering more than forty competitor options because he thought it was the best available. He cannot allege breach of contract where, as here, Direct Energy delivered to him precisely what he purchased.

Richards's contract claim is thus without merit. But even if this were not the case, Richards still could not prevail. His argument is largely predicated on the theory that Direct Energy unjustifiably unmoored its variable rate from Direct Energy's procurement costs. But Richards focuses exclusively on Direct Energy's pricing practices in 2014 and 2015, yet Richards left Direct Energy in 2013. For the three months that Richards paid it, the variable rate and Direct Energy's costs stayed constant, and the variable rate was only 2.36 cents per kWh higher than Eversource's PURA-approved Standard Service Rate. Cf. 14 David M. Stahl & Lisa M. Cipriano, Bus. & Com. Litig. Fed. Cts. § 143:35 (4th ed. 2017) ("[A] filed and approved rate is unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by customers."). Richards would thus not be a proper plaintiff even if his legal theory had any merit, which it does not. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Direct Energy on Richards's contract claim.

The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") prohibits "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). Under CUTPA, "unfair methods of competition," "unfair ... acts," and "deceptive acts" are distinct categories of wrongful conduct. See 12 Robert M. Langer, et al. , Conn. Prac., Unfair Trade Practices § 2.3 (2017). Richards argues that Direct Energy's variable rate pricing was (1) deceptive, (2) a per se violation of CUTPA, and (3) unfair. Richards's CUTPA claims are almost entirely duplicative of his contract claim. They are also without merit, and we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment as to these claims.

"An act or practice is deceptive" under CUTPA if the defendant makes a material representation or omission likely to mislead consumers who "interpret the message reasonably under the circumstances." Southington Sav. Bank v. Rodgers , 40 Conn.App. 23, 668 A.2d 733, 736 (1995) (quoting Caldor, Inc. v. Heslin , 215 Conn. 590, 577 A.2d 1009, 1013 (1990) ). "The deception standard is objective in nature," and a representation is deceptive only if it is " 'likely' to mislead rather than merely [has] the 'tendency or capacity' to do so." Langer, et al. , supra , § 2.3 (quoting Matter of Cliffdale Assocs., Inc. , 103 F.T.C. 110, 127 (1984) (Pertschuk, Comm'r, concurring in part and dissenting in part) ). A "failure to disclose can be deceptive only if, in light of all the circumstances, there is a duty to disclose." Normand Josef Enters., Inc. v. Connecticut Nat'l Bank , 230 Conn. 486, 646 A.2d 1289, 1307 (1994).

Richards's deception claim is identical to his contract claim. He contends that "reasonable consumers" would likely interpret the Evergreen clause to mean that the variable rate would reflect "the costs of procuring power ... plus an appropriate margin to cover the legitimate costs and risks of supplying variable rate customers." Reply Br. 4, 6 (quoting Confidential App. 44). But as explained above, the contract unambiguously allowed Direct Energy to set the variable rate the way it did. See *101Murphy v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia , 923 F.2d 923, 929-30 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding, in a case predicated on deceptive advertising, that "[n]o deception can exist where, as here, the parties'" representations are "clear[ ]"); see also Hinchliffe v. Am. Motors Corp. , 39 Conn.Supp. 107, 471 A.2d 980, 988 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1982) (declining "to speculate that the public will place a patently absurd interpretation" on a representation). Richards is also wrong, for the same reasons given above, when he claims that his experts' views about the Evergreen clause raise a question of fact on this issue. Slapping the phrase "reasonable consumer" into his argument does not change our earlier analysis in any way. See Fink v. Time Warner Cable , 714 F.3d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 2013) ("[A] court may determine as a matter of law that an allegedly deceptive [representation] would not have misled a reasonable consumer.").

Accepting Richards's argument to the contrary would mean, in effect, that if Direct Energy wished to retain the discretion in a contract to set its variable rate based on a range of business and market conditions, it was required to disclose every factor influencing that variable rate. But CUTPA imposes no such duty. See, e.g. , Kenney v. Healey Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. , 53 Conn.App. 327, 730 A.2d 115, 117 (1999) (holding that it is not a deceptive trade practice to fail to make certain disclosures unless the defendant has a preexisting duty to do so). Connecticut, to be sure, requires consumer electricity contracts to explain "the rates that [ ] customer[s] will be paying, including the circumstances under which the rates may change." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-245o(f)(2). But PURA determined that the Evergreen clause met this standard when it renewed Direct Energy's license. Requiring Direct Energy to define "business and market conditions" in greater detail would override PURA's certification. Cf. Mead v. Burns , 199 Conn. 651, 509 A.2d 11, 19 (1986) (holding that CUTPA claims "that build[ ] upon the public policy embodied in specific statutory provisions ... must be consistent with the regulatory principles established by the underlying statutes").

Richards's argument that Direct Energy's variable rate pricing constituted a per se violation of CUTPA is equally unavailing. As discussed above, Connecticut requires that "[e]ach contract for electric generation services [ ] contain all material terms of the agreement," including "a clear and conspicuous statement explaining the rates that [each] consumer will be paying" and "the circumstances under which the rates may change." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-245o(f)(2). An electric company that violates this provision commits a per se unfair or deceptive trade practice under CUTPA. Id. § 16-245o(j).

Richards contends that Direct Energy violated § 16-245o(j) because it "misrepresented that it set its variable rate based on 'business and market conditions' when it did not." Pl.-Appellant Br. 46. But Richards assumes, yet again, that the Evergreen clause misrepresented Direct Energy's pricing practices. We have already rejected that view twice in this opinion. We thus affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on Richards's per se CUTPA claim.

Finally, Richards's claim that Direct Energy's variable rate pricing constituted an unfair trade practice under CUTPA is also without merit. A trade practice is unfair under CUTPA if it (1) falls within "the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness," (2) is "immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous," or (3) "causes *102substantial injury to consumers...." Votto v. Am. Car Rental, Inc. , 273 Conn. 478, 871 A.2d 981, 984-85 (2005). The "substantial injury to consumers" prong covers conduct that is "substantial," is not "outweighed by any countervailing benefits," and causes "an injury that consumers themselves could not reasonably have avoided." A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc. , 216 Conn. 200, 579 A.2d 69, 77 (1990) (emphasis removed) (quoting Letter from Federal Trade Commission to Senators Ford and Danforth (Dec. 17, 1980) ).

Richards's contentions do not come close to meeting this standard. Run-of-the-mill statutory violations, torts, and contract breaches do not constitute unfair trade practices. See Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc. , 231 Conn. 707, 652 A.2d 496, 506 (1995) (explaining that "the violation of a consumer statute" is not "an automatic violation of CUTPA" unless a statute "expressly" makes it so); Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC , 275 Conn. 105, 881 A.2d 937, 970 (2005) (declining to "convert every trespass claim involving business property into a CUTPA claim"); Metromedia Energy, Inc. v. Mansei, Inc. , No. CV136041399S, 2014 WL 7495054, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 3, 2014) (holding that "an ordinary breach of the contract" was not unfair under CUTPA). CUTPA thus prohibits only certain particularly abusive commercial practices. See, e.g. , A-G Foods , 579 A.2d at 77 n.9 (recognizing the core of unfair practices as: "(1) withholding material information; (2) making unsubstantiated advertising claims; (3) using high-pressure sales techniques; and (4) depriving consumers of various post-purchase remedies" (quoting Am. Fin. Servs. Ass'n v. F.T.C. , 767 F.2d 957, 979 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ) ); Votto , 871 A.2d at 985 (holding that charging credit cards without the cardholder's authorization is unfair under CUTPA).

The crux of Richards's unfairness theory is, once more, his contention that Direct Energy breached the contract by failing to tie its variable rate to "business and market conditions," which he interprets to mean procurement costs. See Pl.-Appellant Br. 28 ("Richards'[s] claim is that [Direct Energy] acted in an 'unfair' manner by setting variable rates that violate the terms of its contract and do not fluctuate with 'business and market conditions.' "). But a "simple contract breach is not sufficient to establish a violation of CUTPA, particularly where the count alleging CUTPA simply incorporates by reference the breach of contract claim." Boulevard Assocs. v. Sovereign Hotels, Inc. , 72 F.3d 1029, 1039 (1995) (quoting Chaspek Mfg. Corp. v. Tandet , No. CV 9309-2714, 1995 WL 447948, at *12 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 16, 1995) ). So even if Richards had made out a contract claim-and he has not-this central feature of his CUTPA unfairness theory would be meritless. See Ramirez v. Health Net of Ne., Inc. , 285 Conn. 1, 938 A.2d 576, 591 (2008) (holding that a defendant did not violate CUTPA when it "availed itself of the rights afforded under the plain and unambiguous terms of [an] agreement").

Richards argues that his unfairness claim extends further and does not turn on his contract claim alone. Specifically, he objects to Direct Energy's supposed practice of (1) "lur[ing]" consumers with "teaser-rates," and later (2) "goug[ing] [them] with variable rates" that (3) "consumers [do] not monitor." Pl.-Appellant Br. 44. In his view, these practices raise a question of fact as to whether Direct Energy's pricing strategy was unfair. We consider each component of his argument in turn.

First, offering a teaser rate is not against public policy, unethical, or substantially injurious on its own, especially when, as here, consumers can cancel the contract *103whenever they like without paying any fee. See A-G Foods , 579 A.2d at 77 (holding that a trade practice does not cause a substantial injury under CUTPA if a consumer could have reasonably avoided it). Richards himself is a case in point as to why this is so: He chose to sign with Direct Energy because it offered the best fixed rate available. That saved him more than $100 over the Standard Service Rate during the first twelve months of his contract with Direct Energy-hardly a "substantial injury." Votto , 871 A.2d at 985.

Second, Richards's contention that the variable rates were so high that "no rational consumer" would voluntarily sign a variable rate contract, Reply Br. 5, is irrelevant for at least two reasons. First, he did not sign a variable rate contract; he signed a fixed rate contract that rolled over into a variable rate after a set time. As already noted, this at first saved him money, as compared to the Standard Service Rate, and ultimately cost him only about $1.67 per month above the Standard Service Rate during his time with Direct Energy. And regardless, charging high prices does not on its own give rise to a CUTPA violation. See, e.g. , Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. v. Bridgeport Port Auth. , 566 F.Supp.2d 81, 105 (D. Conn. 2008) (Droney, J. ) ("[T]he plaintiffs have not shown that the Port Authority's imposition of an excessive passenger fee is an unfair trade practice by the preponderance of the evidence."). Even Richards concedes as much-several times. See, e.g., Pl.-Appellant Br. 43 ("It is true that pricing practices "alone" may not give rise to a CUTPA unfairness claim."); id. at 45; Reply Br. 17.

Richards's unfair practices claim thus ultimately depends on his assertion that charging a variable rate that "consumers [do] not monitor" is a violation of CUTPA. Pl.-Appellant Br. 44. But he supplies no legal authority for this proposition. Presumably, what bothers Richards is that many Direct Energy consumers pay the variable rate when their initial fixed-rate periods expire, even though leaving their contracts would likely save them money. See id. at 44 (asserting that "no reasonable consumer ... would remain enrolled in a [Direct Energy] variable rate plan"). But this is just an example of "status quo bias": a general tendency by people "to stick with their current situation." Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness 34 (2008). All sorts of companies design their business strategies with the expectation that consumers act this way.⁸ Many magazines and gyms, for example, offer initial discounts on subscriptions and membership on the assumption *104that they can make up the loss if customers either decide they like the product or, crucially, forget to cancel.⁹ And Connecticut law is clear that widespread business practices that are consistent with "common business norms" do not violate CUTPA. Landmark Inv. Grp., LLC v. Calco Const. & Dev. Co. , 141 Conn.App. 40, 60 A.3d 983, 992 (2013).¹⁰ It is therefore clear to us that Direct Energy's pricing strategy during the term of its relationship with Richards was not against public policy, immoral, or substantially injurious.

At bottom, Richards signed a contract guaranteeing him a below-market rate, which he paid for twelve months. For three months after that, he paid approximately two cents above the PURA-approved Standard Service Rate. He then left the contract without penalty. Richards now asks us to invalidate a PURA-approved contract that he chose after considering more than forty private options and the PURA-approved Standard Service Rate. And he does so while conceding that Direct Energy's pricing practices were akin to those of its competitors. See Reply Br. 17 n.12 (characterizing the private electricity market as a "corrupt industr[y]"). But Connecticut chose to deregulate consumer electricity ratemaking, not transfer that authority from a public utility commission to the after-the-fact judgments of courts interpreting CUTPA. See Mead , 509 A.2d at 19 (holding that CUTPA claims "that build[ ] upon the public policy embodied in specific statutory provisions ... must be consistent with the regulatory principles established by the underlying statutes"); see also Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110c (prohibiting suits under CUTPA for "actions otherwise permitted under law as administered by any regulatory board"). We therefore conclude that Richards's CUTPA claim is without merit and that the district court's partial grant of summary judgment as to this claim should be affirmed.

II

Richards next challenges the district court's dismissal of his unjust enrichment *105and Massachusetts state law claims. We review de novo a district court's dismissal on the pleadings, "accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Trs. of Upstate N.Y. Eng'rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt. , 843 F.3d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 2016). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 'to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ).

The district court held that Richards failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment because he signed a contract with Direct Energy. See also Meaney v. Connecticut Hosp. Ass'n, Inc. , 250 Conn. 500, 735 A.2d 813, 823 (1999) ("[A]n express contract between the parties precludes recognition of an implied-in-law contract governing the same subject matter." (quoting 1 E. Farnsworth, Contracts § 2.20 (2d ed. 1998) ) ). Richards contends that this was error. He agrees with the district court that he and Direct Energy had an enforceable contract in principle. But he argues in the alternative that if this contract did not "prevent [Direct Energy's] predatory conduct, then the contract [was] illusory[,] and [he] is entitled to recovery under unjust enrichment." Reply Br. 31-32. We disagree.

The contract was not illusory. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing obliged Direct Energy to act in good faith when it set the variable rate, and "good faith is enough to avoid the finding of an illusory promise." Sicaras v. Cityof Hartford , 44 Conn.App. 771, 692 A.2d 1290, 1297 (1997) (quoting 2 A. Corbin, Contracts § 5.28 (Rev. Ed. 1995) ). Because Richards and Direct Energy had a binding contract, Richards could not plead an unjust enrichment claim. We therefore affirm the district court on this issue.

Finally, we turn to Richards's unfair trade practices claims under Massachusetts law. The district court dismissed these claims for lack of Article III standing because Richards was not injured in Massachusetts. This was error. A plaintiff has Article III standing if he suffered (1) an injury, (2) caused by the defendant that (3) would be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. See, e.g. , Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. , 683 F.3d 59, 62 (2d Cir. 2012). There is no question that Richards satisfies this standard: he was (1) charged money, (2) by Direct Energy, and (3) seeks recompense for this charge. To be sure, whether a statute grants a plaintiff a cause of action will often turn on where the tortious conduct occurred. See, e.g. , Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd. , 561 U.S. 247, 254, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010) ("[T]o ask what conduct [a statute] reaches is to ask what conduct [that statute] prohibits, which is a merits question."). But "the absence of a valid ... cause of action does not implicate" Article III standing. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static ControlComponents, Inc. , 572 U.S. 118, 128 n.4, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014) (quoting Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md. , 535 U.S. 635, 642-43, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002) ).

We still affirm the district court's dismissal of Richards's Massachusetts claims, however, because dismissal was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Sharkey v. Quarantillo , 541 F.3d 75, 92 (2d Cir. 2008) ("Although the district court erroneously dismissed *106the action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), we could nonetheless affirm the dismissal if dismissal were otherwise proper based on failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)." (quoting EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ) ). Here, Richards failed to state a claim because Massachusetts does not give plaintiffs a cause of action for unfair or deceptive acts that "occur[ ] outside" Massachusetts. Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google Inc. , 86 Mass.App.Ct. 611, 19 N.E.3d 440, 449 (2014). Beyond this statutory hurdle, the United States Constitution would also bar Massachusetts from regulating, via consumer protection law, the rates that Direct Energy charged consumers in Connecticut. See, e.g. , Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. , 294 U.S. 511, 528, 55 S.Ct. 497, 79 L.Ed. 1032 (1935) (holding that the Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits one state from "establish[ing] ... a scale of prices for use in other states"); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell , 538 U.S. 408, 421, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003) (holding that a state may not "punish a defendant for conduct that may have been lawful where it occurred").

Richards does not challenge any of this on appeal but instead argues that he has " 'class standing' ... to assert claims on behalf of " Direct Energy's Massachusetts customers, even if he cannot personally assert any claims under Massachusetts law. NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co. , 693 F.3d 145, 158 (2d Cir. 2012). But the district court's August 4, 2015 decision was not to the contrary. The court held merely that Richards could not sue on his own behalf under Massachusetts law; it did not opine on whether a plaintiff asserting claims under Connecticut law could represent a class of consumers asserting claims under Massachusetts law. The court never had cause to reach the latter issue because it never addressed the issue of class certification. Instead, it dismissed Richards's motion for certification as moot in March 2017 because he no longer had any viable claims under Connecticut law. Richards does not challenge this dismissal on appeal.

Accordingly, we have no occasion to address whether Article III would have prevented Richards from representing a class of plaintiffs with claims under Massachusetts law. But see Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. , 897 F.3d 88, 96 (2d Cir. 2018) (holding that "whether a plaintiff can bring a class action under the state laws of multiple states is a question of predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), not a question of standing under Article III"). We therefore affirm the district court's August 4, 2015 partial dismissal as to the Massachusetts claims.

CONCLUSION

We have considered each of Richards's remaining arguments and have determined them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1 See, e.g. , Hamlen v. Gateway Energy Servs. Corp. , No. 16 Civ 3526, 2017 WL 6398729, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2017) ; Edwards v. N. Am. Power & Gas, LLC , 120 F.Supp.3d 132, 142 (D. Conn. 2015) ; Yang Chen v. Hiko Energy, LLC , No. 14 CV 1771, 2014 WL 7389011, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2014).

2 The facts outlined below primarily relate to the claims dismissed on summary judgment and are therefore either undisputed or presented in the light most favorable to Richards. See Raspardo v. Carlone , 770 F.3d 97, 111 (2d Cir. 2014). As for Richards's claims dismissed on the pleadings, we accept all factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in Richards's favor. See Trs. of Upstate N.Y. Eng'rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt. , 843 F.3d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 2016).

3 See "Compare Generation Rates," Energize CT , https://www.energizect.com/compare-energy-suppliers (last visited July 4, 2018).

4 The record does not disclose United Illuminating's Standard Service Rate.

5 For the same reason, the dissent's observation that ambiguous contract language creates a jury question regarding the parties' intent, Dissenting Op. at 111, misses the point. In the context of Richards's claim, the Evergreen clause is not ambiguous. Richards himself testified that even he did not interpret the contract as he would now have us read it. See J.A. 135 (agreeing that Direct Energy had "[p]retty much" complete discretion in deciding how to set its variable rate). While there might be some pricing considerations that would fall outside the "business and market conditions" that Direct Energy was explicitly authorized to consider, nothing in that phrase suggests the specific limitation that Richards now argues for. The dissent's contention that a "reasonable juror ... could find that Direct Energy tied its price-setting discretion to its cost of doing business," Dissenting Op. at 111, is patently incorrect, so long as jurors are constrained by law, and not permitted to invent absent contract terms out of thin air.

6 See Orange v. Starion Energy PA, Inc , No. CV 15-773, 2016 WL 1043618, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2016), aff'd , 711 F. App'x 681 (3d Cir. 2017) ; Windley v. Starion Energy, Inc. , No. 14-CV-9053, 2016 WL 197503, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2016), appeal withdrawn , No. 16-320 (2d Cir. 2016); Zahn v. N. Am. Power & Gas, LLC , No. 14 C 8370, 2015 WL 2455125, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2015), rev'd and vacated in part on other grounds, 847 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 2017) ; Urbino v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC , No. Civ. 14-5184, 2015 WL 4510201, at *4-5 (D.N.J. July 24, 2015) ; Faistl v. Energy Plus Holdings, LLC , No. Civ. 12-2879, 2012 WL 3835815, at *5-6 (D.N.J. Sept. 4, 2012).

Moreover, because there is no evidence in the record that Direct Energy supplemented the terms of its written contract with additional representations to Richards, this case is different from those where defendants are alleged to have misrepresented to the plaintiffs that the "business and market conditions" clauses would guarantee below-market prices. See Todd v. XOOM Energy Maryland, LLC , No. GJH-15-0154, 2017 WL 667198, at *8 (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2017) ; Melville v. Spark Energy, Inc. , No. 15-8706, 2016 WL 6775635, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2016) ; Landau v. Viridian Energy PA LLC , 223 F.Supp.3d 401, 418-19 (E.D. Pa. 2016) ; Mirkin v. Viridian Energy, Inc. , No. 3:15-CV-1057, 2016 WL 3661106, at *6-7 (D. Conn. July 5, 2016).

7 Indeed, if Richards wanted to pay less than he would have paid under the Standard Service Rate, he could have chosen a contract with a "guaranteed savings" clause that promised just that.

8 The core of the dissent's unfairness argument is thus similarly meritless. "People are inertial" and "not attentive," the dissent proclaims, Dissenting Op. at 109, 109, and therefore Direct Energy has violated the law by "exploit[ing] those consumer vulnerabilities," id . at 109 (citing Neil W. Averitt, The Meaning of "Unfair Acts or Practices" in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act , 70 Geo. L.J. 225 (1981) ). But the only "vulnerability" that Direct Energy has purportedly "exploited" is our basic tendency to be creatures of habit-a far cry from the targeting of traditionally "legally vulnerable" groups like children, the insane, the seriously ill, the bereaved, or the physically dependent, see Averitt, 70 Geo. L.J. at 256. In our view, no reasonable jury could find the former tactic unfair under the circumstances presented here.

Nor can the dissent rely on the unfounded assertion that Direct Energy has engaged in "strategies to avoid alerting customers to their rising rates." Dissenting Op. at 110. That charge is baseless. In a footnote, the dissent references a factual dispute about whether Direct Energy mailed notices to its consumers to notify them that their fixed rate periods would soon expire. But whether Direct Energy took it upon itself to remind customers of the terms of the contracts that they themselves had willingly signed, nothing in the record suggests that Direct Energy erected any affirmative barriers to its customers exiting those contracts at will. We reject the dissent's attempt to impose additional affirmative duties under the aegis of CUTPA, a maneuver that Connecticut courts have previously rejected. See Normand Josef Enters., 646 A.2d at 1307 ; Kenney , 730 A.2d at 117.

9 See, e.g. , Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness 35 (2008) ("American Express wrote [Cass] Sunstein a cheerful letter telling him that he could receive, for free, three-month subscriptions to five magazines of his choice. Free subscriptions seem like a bargain, even if the magazines rarely get read, so Sunstein happily made his choices. What he didn't realize was that unless he took some action to cancel his subscription, he would continue to receive the magazines, paying for them at the normal rate. For about a decade, he has continued to subscribe to magazines that he hardly ever reads.").

10 In response, the dissent quotes a Connecticut Superior Court decision for the proposition that "[t]he fact that the defendant's practice is standard in the industry ... does not excuse it as a violation of CUTPA." Dissenting Op. at 107 (quoting Halloran v. Spillane's Servicenter, Inc. , 41 Conn. Supp. 484, 500, 587 A.2d 176 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1990) ). But this comparison ignores the substantial daylight between a standard practice within a single industry and common business norms across many industries. Halloran involved a towing company's refusal to release a vehicle owner's personal possessions before payment of all fees connected with the towing service, id. at 488, 587 A.2d 176 -apparently a common practice within the Connecticut towing business at the time, id. at 500, 587 A.2d 176. That conduct bears no analogy to quotidian pricing practices like Direct Energy's, which have long been mainstream across numerous sectors of American commerce.