Attorney General Kathy Jennings, through her Consumer Protection Unit, has filed a motion asking the Superior Court to enforce a subpoena against Mastercraft Contracting, LLC (“Mastercraft”), a home improvement contractor that has had multiple consumer complaints filed against it. After nearly three months, Mastercraft has failed to substantively respond to the subpoena. This comes after Mastercraft was previously ordered by the Superior Court in 2025 to respond to a similar CPU subpoena. After receiving and reviewing documents responsive to the 2025 court order, CPU sent this subpoena seeking additional documents in early 2026 as part of the next phase of CPU’s investigation.

The DOJ is investigating whether Mastercraft has violated Delaware’s consumer protection laws after receiving complaints that Mastercraft targets homeowners that have recently experienced significant storms and uses misleading door-to-door sales and time tactics to sell its roofing and construction services.

“Consumers should never be strong-armed into paying for services or be made victim to frivolous, extortionate lawsuits,” said Attorney General Jennings. “We’re asking the Court to step in so that that our Consumer Protection Unit can continue to do its critical work investigating these predatory practices.”

According to an affidavit filed with CPU’s motion, CPU has received multiple consumer complaints about Mastercraft business practices, including that Mastercraft used aggressive and targeted door-to-door sales practices to engage consumers, represented that consumers were signing only to authorize a free inspection when the documents were actually contracts, and then threatened excessive liquidated damages in the amount of one third of the contract price when consumers decided not to use Mastercraft, including by filing lawsuits with Delaware’s Justice of the Peace Court.

Mastercraft advertised “free inspections” to consumers, who were told by Mastercraft that they must sign a document to authorize the free inspection. The document, however, is actually a contract that purportedly entitles Mastercraft to “liquidated damages” of one third of the contract price should the consumer decide not to use Mastercraft. In an effort to enforce that clause, Mastercraft filed numerous lawsuits against consumers; many of these lawsuits have been dismissed by Delaware courts with the clause being found to constitute an unenforceable penalty.

Print