See ECF No. 15 at 15-17. Ambit argues that Plaintiffs' allegations are not plausible because consumers are charged with the knowledge of publically available information, see id. at 15 (citing Karakus v. N.Y. Dep't of Consumer Affairs, 979 N.Y.S.2d 567, 568 (1st Dep't 2014) and Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. '21' Int'l Holdings, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 212, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)), and publicly available information informed Plaintiffs that Ambit's budget billing required them to pay energy costs that exceeded their monthly bill. See id. at 15 (citing State of New York Public Service Commission, Uniform Business Practices (Dec. 2010) (defining ESCO budget billing generally and stating that "[i]nstallment amounts . . . may include reconciliations at the end of the budget period to account for differences between actual charges and installment amounts")).

However, for the reasons discussed below, that provision does not support the agency's refusal to renew petitioner's business license, based on unpaid fines assessed under petitioner's pedicab driver's license. A recent appellate decision may lend some support for petitioner's quest for vindication ( see Matter of Karakus v. New York City Depart. of Consumer Affairs, 114 A.D.3d 422, 979 N.Y.S.2d 567 [1st Dept.2014] [officers' conduct in selecting a pedicab for an on-the-spot inspection was not reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution because it was not pursuant to a uniform procedure or subject to any objective standard] ). Administrative Code § 20–104(e)(3)