Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Gillece Services Consumer Protection Lawsuit, Full Case Breakdown

Note: This article covers an active lawsuit with proceedings still pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as of April 2026. This page will be updated as the case develops.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of the Attorney General v. Gillece Services, LP is a civil consumer protection enforcement lawsuit in which the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania alleged that Gillece Services — a Pittsburgh-area home improvement contractor — engaged in deceptive business practices including a bait-and-switch scheme, blocking contract cancellations, misleading advertising, and using scare tactics to pressure homeowners into unnecessary and costly repairs.

The state filed suit against Gillece Services in 2020, claiming the Pittsburgh-based contractor misled customers into paying for unnecessary home improvement work, including unnecessary replacement of sewer pipes. Courts have already ruled against Gillece on multiple counts. The case now awaits a final Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the verbal cancellation issue.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Plaintiff	Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of the Attorney General
Defendants	Gillece Services, LP (d/b/a Gillece Plumbing, Heating, Cooling, and Electrical, Inc.); Gillece Plumbing and Heating, Inc.; Thomas J. Gillece (Owner); James F. Hackwelder (Field Supervisor); Joseph A. Nikoula (Field Supervisor)
Case Name & Number	Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, OAG v. Gillece Services, LP — No. GD-20-009374
Court	Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (trial court); Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (appeal); Pennsylvania Supreme Court (pending)
Date Lawsuit Filed	2020
Legal Claims	Violations of the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL)
Current Stage	Pending Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (oral arguments heard October 7, 2025)
Next Scheduled Date	TBD — Supreme Court decision not yet issued as of April 2026
Attorneys of Record	John Linkosky, Esq. (Linkosky & Associates, Carnegie, PA) for Gillece; Jill T. Ambrose, Esq. for the Commonwealth
Damages Sought	Full restitution to affected consumers; civil penalties of $1,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Law and $3,000 per violation involving victims age 60 or older; permanent ban from operating as a home improvement contractor
Last Updated	April 21, 2026

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020	Pennsylvania Attorney General files lawsuit against Gillece Services in Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
August 1, 2023	Trial court grants partial summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth on Counts 3, 4, and 6; issues permanent injunctions against Gillece
August 3, 2023	Gillece Services files appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
July 3, 2024	Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirms the trial court’s ruling (Case No. 861 C.D. 2023)
2024	Pennsylvania Supreme Court grants allowance of appeal (Case No. 209 WAL 2024)
October 7, 2025	Pennsylvania Supreme Court hears oral arguments
TBD	Pennsylvania Supreme Court issues final decision — not yet issued as of April 2026

What Is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Gillece Services Lawsuit About? Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, OAG v. Gillece Services, LP, No. GD-20-009374

The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit against Gillece Services in Allegheny County alleging a “bait-and-switch scheme” that lured customers in with deceptively low prices only to tell them the job required different, expensive home improvement work. The case centers on Gillece’s advertised “Clog Crusher” service — for $93, Gillece said it would clear out customers’ sewer backups.

According to the complaint, Gillece technicians recommended costly excavation work without even making a good-faith effort to clear consumers’ sewer lines using a snake, and the company’s trucks were stocked with “the smallest, most basic type of snake cutter” designed only to get water flowing temporarily — not to clear stubborn clogs. The complaint alleged this set Gillece up to fail on purpose, so it could sell homeowners expensive work they did not need. A related legal issue — central to multiple court rulings — involves whether Gillece violated HICPA by refusing to honor customers’ verbal requests to cancel contracts, a key consumer right under Pennsylvania law.

Other allegations include that Gillece failed to properly complete contracts, made false statements about the prices it charged, and used scare tactics to convince customers they were in danger if the work was not completed quickly. The complaint also alleged that employees were often paid on a commission basis per job, which encouraged them to increase services and fees.

Related article: Center for Biological Diversity vs. U.S. Interior Department — BP Kaskida Ultra-Deepwater Drilling Lawsuit, Full Case Breakdown

Who Are the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Gillece Services?

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of the Attorney General is the state’s top law enforcement office. Its Bureau of Consumer Protection investigates and prosecutes businesses that engage in deceptive practices against Pennsylvania residents. The lawsuit followed an investigation by the AG’s Bureau of Consumer Protection into Gillece’s advertised “Clog Crusher” service.

Gillece Services, LP — operating under names including Gillece Plumbing, Heating, Cooling, and Electrical, Inc., Rooter-Medic, and Electric Medic — is based in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania and provides plumbing, heating, cooling, and electrical services in the Pittsburgh area, operating across Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. Thomas J. Gillece is the President and majority owner and shareholder of both Gillece Services, LP and Gillece Plumbing and Heating, Inc., and manages their day-to-day operations. The lawsuit also names former service manager James F. Hackwelder and field supervisor Joseph A. Nikoula as individual defendants.

What Is at Stake in This Lawsuit?

The Pennsylvania AG seeks significant relief on multiple fronts. The lawsuit asks the court to order Gillece to make full restitution to every customer who suffered a loss, to pay civil penalties of $1,000 for every violation of the Consumer Protection Law and $3,000 for each violation involving victims age 60 or older. The Commonwealth also seeks a permanent ban prohibiting Gillece from registering as a home improvement contractor.

The trial court already found that Gillece Services and its owner engaged in misconduct including refusing to honor customers’ requests to cancel their home improvement contracts, penalizing consumers who cancel contracts, failing to disclose and misrepresenting a customer’s right to cancel, using advertising with false and misleading statements about the qualifications of its technicians, and failing to provide itemized invoices to consumers.

The court issued several permanent injunctions, requiring among other things that Gillece and its owner permit consumers to revoke their home improvement contracts without penalty within three business days of signing, refund payments within ten days of cancellation, and clearly and conspicuously disclose in its advertising material terms and restrictions on certain of its offers. The remaining allegation — that Gillece recommended unnecessary work to consumers — is still awaiting trial.

What Happens Next in This Case?

On October 7, 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. During the argument, the Justices observed that residential customers can verbally cancel a contract when the contract is governed by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act.

While the Justices’ comments are not binding law, they are consistent with the prior decisions of the lower courts and suggest the Court’s decision may make clear that when HICPA applies, verbal cancellations must be honored. The Supreme Court’s written decision had not yet been issued as of April 2026.

The Court’s decision, once issued, will likely require contractors to consider changing their contracts for residential work to ensure the cancellation provisions conform to the Court’s ruling. Separately, the underlying allegation that Gillece recommended unnecessary home improvement work — the original core of the AG’s case — is still pending trial at the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. That trial has not yet been scheduled as of the publication of this article.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who filed the lawsuit against Gillece Services and why?

 The Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General filed the lawsuit in 2020 after its Bureau of Consumer Protection investigated Gillece’s “Clog Crusher” advertised service. According to the complaint, Gillece lured homeowners with a $93 advertised rate, then pressured them into paying for costly and allegedly unnecessary excavation work instead.

2. What court is handling the Gillece Services case?

 The case originated in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (No. GD-20-009374). It then moved to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on appeal and is currently before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on October 7, 2025.

3. What is the current status of the Gillece Services lawsuit? 

As of April 2026, the case is active. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has heard arguments but has not yet issued its ruling. Multiple permanent injunctions against Gillece are already in place from the 2023 trial court ruling. The claim involving allegedly unnecessary work recommendations remains pending trial.

4. How much is Pennsylvania seeking in damages against Gillece? 

The Commonwealth seeks full consumer restitution for all harmed customers, civil penalties of $1,000 per Consumer Protection Law violation, and $3,000 per violation where the victim is age 60 or older. The total dollar figure depends on the number of violations the court ultimately determines occurred — TBD pending final adjudication.

5. Can I read the Gillece Services court documents? 

Yes. The case record for No. GD-20-009374 is available through the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s July 3, 2024 opinion (No. 861 C.D. 2023) is publicly available through the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System and legal research platforms including CourtListener and vLex.

6. What did the court already decide about contract cancellations? 

Both the Allegheny County trial court and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that Gillece must honor verbal cancellation requests for contracts governed by HICPA — not just written ones. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments on this issue on October 7, 2025, and is expected to affirm the lower courts’ position based on the Justices’ comments during oral argument.

7. What specific conduct did the courts find Gillece violated?

 The trial court found Gillece violated HICPA and the UTPCPL by refusing to honor cancellation requests, penalizing consumers who canceled, misrepresenting customers’ cancellation rights, running ads with false statements about technician qualifications, and failing to provide itemized invoices. These findings were upheld on appeal in July 2024.

8. Does this case affect other Pennsylvania home improvement contractors?

 Yes — significantly. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling will set a binding statewide standard for whether Pennsylvania home improvement contractors must honor verbal cancellations under HICPA, affecting every contractor performing residential work over $500 in the state.

Sources & References

• Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Opinion, No. 861 C.D. 2023 (July 3, 2024): hh-law.com

Case Type Classification Tag: Business Fraud / Consumer Protection Enforcement

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official court records and verified public sources on April 21, 2026. Last Updated: April 21, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information about ongoing or concluded legal cases is based on publicly available court records and verified reporting. Allegations described in this article have not necessarily been proven in court. For advice regarding a particular legal situation, consult a qualified attorney.