Supergas to Pay 36 Million Shekels to Customers Over Unequal Gas Pricing in Central Systems

Supergas Power has agreed to compensate customers approximately 36 million shekels following a class-action lawsuit alleging discriminatory pricing among users connected to the same central gas system in a building. The settlement, reached through mediation and pending court approval at the Lod District Court, requires Supergas to refund 17 million shekels including VAT immediately, with the remainder to be paid as compensation later. The initial compensation will be credited to the gas bills of all domestic Supergas customers connected to central gas systems who were customers since January 1, 2017, with credits applied up to three billing cycles. Any remaining unpaid amounts after 10 months will be transferred to a fund for distribution. The compensation is expected to amount to several dozen shekels per customer.

Supergas also committed to implementing an automatic "horizontal condition comparison" for customers within the same gas system, ensuring that if one customer receives a preferential rate, all others connected to that system will receive the same benefit for four years, valued at no less than 14 million shekels excluding VAT. The lead plaintiff’s legal team will receive 1.125 million shekels, and their attorneys 3.175 million shekels plus VAT. The lawsuit was initiated by a long-time private customer who discovered in 2020 that her gas rate was nearly double that of some neighbors connected to the same system, paying 66.5 shekels per cubic meter compared to neighbors paying as low as 29.25 shekels. She claimed Supergas violated Section 17g1(a)(2) of the Economic Arrangements Law, which prohibits offering different contract terms to tenants in the same building within 10 days.

Supergas denied wrongdoing, arguing the law does not require uniform or lowest pricing for all customers and is intended to prevent suppliers from bribing individual tenants to block switching providers. The company claimed that the obligation to offer updated terms to all neighbors arises only when the supplier initiates contract changes, not when customers request discounts themselves. They also argued the plaintiff did not prove that preferential offers were supplier-initiated or that contract changes occurred after the law’s 2017 enactment. Additionally, Supergas noted the plaintiff’s gas consumption was significantly lower than her neighbors’, justifying different rates. Despite these defenses, the parties agreed to the settlement without admission of liability.