Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies From time to time, we may be involved in legal, tax, regulatory and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Legal Proceedings Below is a summary of our currently pending material legal proceedings. We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. The following legal proceedings are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, unless otherwise specifically noted, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolutions of these legal proceedings or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse verdict in a potential lawsuit. While the lawsuits and claims are asserted for amounts that may be material should an unfavorable outcome occur, management does not currently expect that any currently pending matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Consumer Lawsuits Similar to other energy service companies (“ESCOs”) operating in the industry, from time-to-time, the Company is subject to class action lawsuits in various jurisdictions where the Company sells natural gas and electricity. On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed by a Maryland customer in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers (including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment. The Company moved this case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Case No. 1:21-cv-03251-MJM) and in December 2023 filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In September 2024, the Court granted the Company’s motion that argued that Glikin had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and that, if she wishes to proceed, she must first go to the Maryland Public Service Commission (“Maryland PSC”). On November 6, 2024, Glikin filed a complaint with the Maryland PSC. The Company responded to her complaint on February 28, 2025. On May 2025, the PSC ruled in favor of the Company, finding no fraudulent conduct. Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the federal court stay on June 16, 2025. The Company intends to seek dismissal based on the favorable PSC determination. From time-to-time the Company and its operating subsidiaries receive TCPA-based lawsuits, which are without merit as the Company has a robust telemarketing compliance program in place. Three cases are pending, at early stages of litigation: (1) Clark v. Via Renewables, Inc. (filed January 30, 2024), and (2) Grant v. Via Renewables, Inc. (November 15, 2024). The Company is vigorously defending these claims. Corporate Matter Lawsuits The Company may from time to time be subject to legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. On July 19, 2024, Joshua Amburgey, a purported stockholder of the Company at the time of the Merger, filed a verified class action complaint, Joshua Amburgey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Via Renewables, Inc., et al., Case No. 2024-0762-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the “Amburgey Action”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Delaware Court”) against the Company and Amanda E. Bush, Stephen Kennedy and Kenneth Hartwick in their capacities as members of the Company’s Special Transaction Committee of the Board of Directors (“Special Committee”), as well as Mr. Maxwell, Retailco, LLC, TxEx Energy Investments, LLC, Electric Holdco, LLC, NuDevco Retail Holdings, LLC and NuDevco Retail, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company’s public stockholders in connection with the Merger. This matter is pending before the Delaware Chancery Court. On July 25, 2024, Bruce Taylor, a purported stockholder of the Company at the time of the Merger, filed a verified class action complaint, Bruce Taylor v. W. Keith Maxwell III, et al., Case No. 2024-0794 (Del. Ch.) (the “Taylor Action”) in the Delaware Court against the Special Committee, and Mike Barajas, in his capacity as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, as well as Mr. Maxwell in his capacity as controlling stockholder of the Company. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and participated in the provision of a materially untrue and misleading proxy statement to Company’s minority stockholders in connection with the Merger. This matter is pending before the Delaware Chancery Court. Regulatory Matters Many state regulators have increased scrutiny on retail energy providers, across all industry providers. We are subject to regular regulatory inquiries, license renewal reviews, and preliminary investigations in the ordinary course of our business. Below is a summary of our currently pending material state regulatory matters. The following state regulatory matters are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of these state regulatory matters or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse action. Management does not currently expect that any currently pending state regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. Illinois. On July 26, 2023, Spark Energy, LLC received a demand letter from a law firm representing the Office of the Illinois Attorney General alleging that Spark Energy, LLC’s marketing and sales practices may have not been in compliance with Illinois law. The letter offered, in the interest of efficiency and minimizing litigation costs, a settlement demand to resolve the matter. The Company has agreed to engage in mediation with the law firm to try to resolve this matter. The Company met for an all-day mediation in August 2024 and several other virtual settlement discussions. The settlement discussions were unsuccessful, and the Attorney General commenced a lawsuit in Illinois against Spark Energy, LLC and Spark Energy Gas, LCC on January 16, 2025 (“IL AG State Action”). Spark filed a motion to dismiss (“MTD”) the IL AG State Action and simultaneously, proactively filed a federal action raising constitutional issues (“Federal Action”). The IL AG filed its reply to the MTD on June 17, 2025. Spark responded to the IL AG’s early July 2025. All actions are in the early stages, and the parties have resumed settlement negotiations. Maine. On February 9, 2023, Maine Commission’s Consumer Assistance and Safety Division (“Advocacy Staff”) filed a Request for Formal Investigation requesting that the Maine Commission open a formal, enforcement investigation to review whether Company’s subsidiary, Electricity Maine, LLC (EME), is in compliance with the Maine Commission’s Rules. During a special deliberative session, the same day, the Maine Commission announced it would proceed with a formal investigation of EME, which was noticed in a Notice of Enforcement Investigation issued February 10, 2023 (Docket No. 2023-00024). The Company met with Advocacy Staff over the course of several months to address concerns. As a result, the Company and the Advocacy Staff have agreed to a settlement in principle pursuant to which customers would receive certain limited refunds on their energy bill and the Company would be fined. On October 18, 2024, the Maine Commission approved EME’s proposed settlement. The Company has paid the fine and has been making such refunds to customers which will conclude in 2025. Maryland. Maryland SB1, sponsored by Senator Augustine (D-Prince George’s County) and Delegate Crosby (D- St. Mary’s County), was signed into law in May 2024. In addition to numerous green energy requirements, pricing restrictions, and burdensome new consumer protections, Maryland SB1 prohibits residential purchase of receivables (POR) for contracts executed or renewed after December 31, 2024. Maryland SB1's effect has been to largely make it extremely difficult for all retail energy providers to offer Maryland residential consumers energy choice. The Company is working to minimize economic impacts of Maryland SB1 to the Company. Massachusetts. In February 2025, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities opened a new docket, DP 19-07, and has met twice with industry participants to address concerns it has in the retail energy market. The focus of DP 19-07 is (i) limiting green energy offerings in Massachusetts to Class I Massachusetts renewable energy credits (i.e., renewable energy from projects built after 1997 and located within the New England region) and (ii) only permitting retail energy sales on the government’s consumer shopping website. This proposal, if enacted, would affect all retail energy providers in Massachusetts, making it more costly to provide green energy offerings and extremely difficult to offer Massachusetts residential consumers energy choice. The Company is working to minimize economic impacts of the Massachusetts proposal to the Company. Ohio. On August 14, 2024, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) sent Major Energy a notice of probable non-compliance regarding approximately fifty-five consumer complaints during the time period January 3, 2023 through April 12, 2024. The Company has worked cooperatively with PUCO and the Ohio Office of Consumer Counsel to resolve this matter, and believes this matter will not have a material impact on the Company. In addition to the matters disclosed above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company may from time to time be subject to regulators initiating informal reviews or issuing subpoenas for information as means to evaluate the Company and its subsidiaries’ compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations and practices. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those regulatory reviews to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Indirect Tax Audits We are undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2023 to 2025 for which additional liabilities may arise. At the time of filing these consolidated financial statements, these indirect tax audits are at an early stage and subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of audit findings and corresponding responses. As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, we had accrued $10.2 million and $11.9 million, respectively, related to litigation and regulatory matters and zero and $0.8 million, respectively, related to indirect tax audits. The accrual for litigation and regulatory matters, and indirect tax audits is recorded in accrued liabilities on the balance sheet. The outcome of each of these may result in additional expense.

From time to time, we may be involved in legal, tax, regulatory and other proceedings in the ordinary course of business. Liabilities for loss contingencies arising from claims, assessments, litigation or other sources are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

Below is a summary of our currently pending material legal proceedings. We are subject to lawsuits and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. The following legal proceedings are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, unless otherwise specifically noted, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolutions of these legal proceedings or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse verdict in a potential lawsuit. While the lawsuits and claims are asserted for amounts that may be material should an unfavorable outcome occur, management does not currently expect that any currently pending matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed by a Maryland customer in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers (including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment. The Company moved this case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Case No. 1:21-cv-03251-MJM) and in December 2023 filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In September 2024, the Court granted the Company’s motion that argued that Glikin had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and that, if she wishes to proceed, she must first go to the Maryland Public Service Commission (“Maryland PSC”). On November 6, 2024, Glikin filed a complaint with the Maryland PSC. The Company responded to her complaint on February 28, 2025. On May 2025, the PSC ruled in favor of the Company, finding no fraudulent conduct. Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the federal court stay on June 16, 2025. The Company intends to seek dismissal based on the favorable PSC determination.

From time-to-time the Company and its operating subsidiaries receive TCPA-based lawsuits, which are without merit as the Company has a robust telemarketing compliance program in place. Three cases are pending, at early stages of litigation: (1) Clark v. Via Renewables, Inc. (filed January 30, 2024), and (2) Grant v. Via Renewables, Inc. (November 15, 2024). The Company is vigorously defending these claims.

The Company may from time to time be subject to legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

On July 19, 2024, Joshua Amburgey, a purported stockholder of the Company at the time of the Merger, filed a verified class action complaint, Joshua Amburgey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Via Renewables, Inc., et al., Case No. 2024-0762-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the “Amburgey Action”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (“Delaware Court”) against the Company and Amanda E. Bush, Stephen Kennedy and Kenneth Hartwick in their capacities as members of the Company’s Special Transaction Committee of the Board of Directors (“Special Committee”), as well as Mr. Maxwell, Retailco, LLC, TxEx Energy Investments, LLC, Electric Holdco, LLC, NuDevco Retail Holdings, LLC and NuDevco Retail, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company’s public stockholders in connection with the Merger. This matter is pending before the Delaware Chancery Court.

On July 25, 2024, Bruce Taylor, a purported stockholder of the Company at the time of the Merger, filed a verified class action complaint, Bruce Taylor v. W. Keith Maxwell III, et al., Case No. 2024-0794 (Del. Ch.) (the “Taylor Action”) in the Delaware Court against the Special Committee, and Mike Barajas, in his capacity as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, as well as Mr. Maxwell in his capacity as controlling stockholder of the Company. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and participated in the provision of a materially untrue and misleading proxy statement to Company’s minority stockholders in connection with the Merger. This matter is pending before the Delaware Chancery Court.

Many state regulators have increased scrutiny on retail energy providers, across all industry providers. We are subject to regular regulatory inquiries, license renewal reviews, and preliminary investigations in the ordinary course of our business. Below is a summary of our currently pending material state regulatory matters. The following state regulatory matters are in various stages and are subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of material factual and legal issues. Accordingly, we cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of these state regulatory matters or estimate a range of possible losses or a minimum loss that could result from an adverse action. Management does not currently expect that any currently pending state regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Illinois. On July 26, 2023, Spark Energy, LLC received a demand letter from a law firm representing the Office of the Illinois Attorney General alleging that Spark Energy, LLC’s marketing and sales practices may have not been in compliance with Illinois law. The letter offered, in the interest of efficiency and minimizing litigation costs, a settlement demand to resolve the matter. The Company has agreed to engage in mediation with the law firm to try to resolve this matter. The Company met for an all-day mediation in August 2024 and several other virtual settlement discussions. The settlement discussions were unsuccessful, and the Attorney General commenced a lawsuit in Illinois against Spark Energy, LLC and Spark Energy Gas, LCC on January 16, 2025 (“IL AG State Action”). Spark filed a motion to dismiss (“MTD”) the IL AG State Action and simultaneously, proactively filed a federal action raising constitutional issues (“Federal Action”). The IL AG filed its reply to the MTD on June 17, 2025. Spark responded to the IL AG’s early July 2025. All actions are in the early stages, and the parties have resumed settlement negotiations.

Maine. On February 9, 2023, Maine Commission’s Consumer Assistance and Safety Division (“Advocacy Staff”) filed a Request for Formal Investigation requesting that the Maine Commission open a formal, enforcement investigation to review whether Company’s subsidiary, Electricity Maine, LLC (EME), is in compliance with the Maine Commission’s Rules. During a special deliberative session, the same day, the Maine Commission announced it would proceed with a formal investigation of EME, which was noticed in a Notice of Enforcement Investigation issued February 10, 2023 (Docket No. 2023-00024). The Company met with Advocacy Staff over the course of several months to address concerns. As a result, the Company and the Advocacy Staff have agreed to a settlement in principle pursuant to which customers would receive certain limited refunds on their energy bill and the Company

Maryland. Maryland SB1, sponsored by Senator Augustine (D-Prince George’s County) and Delegate Crosby (D- St. Mary’s County), was signed into law in May 2024. In addition to numerous green energy requirements, pricing restrictions, and burdensome new consumer protections, Maryland SB1 prohibits residential purchase of receivables (POR) for contracts executed or renewed after December 31, 2024. Maryland SB1's effect has been to largely make it extremely difficult for all retail energy providers to offer Maryland residential consumers energy choice. The Company is working to minimize economic impacts of Maryland SB1 to the Company.

Massachusetts. In February 2025, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities opened a new docket, DP 19-07, and has met twice with industry participants to address concerns it has in the retail energy market. The focus of DP 19-07 is (i) limiting green energy offerings in Massachusetts to Class I Massachusetts renewable energy credits (i.e., renewable energy from projects built after 1997 and located within the New England region) and (ii) only permitting retail energy sales on the government’s consumer shopping website. This proposal, if enacted, would affect all retail energy providers in Massachusetts, making it more costly to provide green energy offerings and extremely difficult to offer Massachusetts residential consumers energy choice. The Company is working to minimize economic impacts of the Massachusetts proposal to the Company.

Ohio. On August 14, 2024, the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (“PUCO”) sent Major Energy a notice of probable non-compliance regarding approximately fifty-five consumer complaints during the time period January 3, 2023 through April 12, 2024. The Company has worked cooperatively with PUCO and the Ohio Office of Consumer Counsel to resolve this matter, and believes this matter will not have a material impact on the Company.

In addition to the matters disclosed above, in the ordinary course of business, the Company may from time to time be subject to regulators initiating informal reviews or issuing subpoenas for information as means to evaluate the Company and its subsidiaries’ compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations and practices. Although there can be no assurance in this regard, the Company does not expect any of those regulatory reviews to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

We are undergoing various types of indirect tax audits spanning from years 2023 to 2025 for which additional liabilities may arise. At the time of filing these consolidated financial statements, these indirect tax audits are at an early stage and subject to substantial uncertainties concerning the outcome of audit findings and corresponding responses.

As of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, we had accrued $10.2 million and $11.9 million, respectively, related to litigation and regulatory matters and zero and $0.8 million, respectively, related to indirect tax audits. The accrual for litigation and regulatory matters, and indirect tax audits is recorded in accrued liabilities on the balance sheet. The outcome of each of these may result in additional expense.