LGCY Power, a Utah-based residential solar sales company, has been the subject of multiple lawsuits, most of them alleging that it misclassified its door-to-door sales workforce as independent contractors instead of employees. A California class action called Green v. LGCY Power ended in a $3.82 million settlement approved in June 2023. A parallel federal case in Utah, Valley v. LGCY Power, was dismissed in January 2026 after a private settlement. A separate Missouri suit also settled quickly in 2025, and the company’s name has surfaced in a New York regulatory action against a different solar firm accused of using the LGCY brand without permission.
Green v. LGCY Power: The $3.82 Million California Class Action
The largest case against LGCY Power was filed in 2019 in the San Diego Superior Court. In Robert Green et al. v. LGCY Power, LLC et al. (Case No. 37-2019-00026629-CU-OE-CTL), three named plaintiffs — Robert Green, Anthony Ruiz, and John Tanner — along with roughly 50 anonymous individuals alleged that LGCY had violated California employment law by treating its door-to-door salespeople, setters, closers, and lead generators as independent contractors.1Simpluris. Green v. LGCY Power Settlement Notice The plaintiffs argued that because LGCY controlled how and when workers performed their duties, those workers were legally employees.2Top Class Actions. LGCY Power Employee Misclassification $3.82M Class Action Settlement
The specific claims included failure to pay wages in a timely manner, withholding wages, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide legally required rest breaks.2Top Class Actions. LGCY Power Employee Misclassification $3.82M Class Action Settlement The case also included claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, which lets employees sue on behalf of the state for labor code violations.
Who Was Covered
The class covered anyone who provided services to LGCY Power in California in a sales or lead generation role between May 23, 2015, and August 5, 2022, regardless of whether the company had classified them as employees or independent contractors.1Simpluris. Green v. LGCY Power Settlement Notice
How the Money Was Split
The gross settlement fund was $3,820,000. From that amount, the settlement allocated up to $76,400 for PAGA penalties, $17,000 for settlement administration, up to $20,000 each for the three named plaintiffs as enhancement awards, up to $50,000 for litigation costs, and attorneys’ fees of up to one-third of the total fund.1Simpluris. Green v. LGCY Power Settlement Notice The remaining net amount was distributed among class members based on a point system tied to weeks worked in California, recorded customer interactions, completed installations, and manager weeks.
LGCY also agreed to waive claims for unearned advances it had previously paid to class members who were active with the company on or before April 30, 2021.1Simpluris. Green v. LGCY Power Settlement Notice That concession mattered because the company could otherwise have tried to claw back those payments.
Approval and Payment Status
Judge Ronald F. Frazier of the San Diego Superior Court granted final approval on June 14, 2023. LGCY was required to fund the settlement in installments, with the final installment due by December 2023. Individual checks were to be disbursed in three rounds ending December 15, 2023, and were valid for 120 days after issuance. As of the last available update on the settlement website, however, LGCY was still described as “in the process of funding the Gross Settlement Fund,” with class member disbursements listed as pending.3LGCY Settlement. Green v. LGCY Power Settlement
Valley v. LGCY Power: The Federal Misclassification Case
A second misclassification lawsuit followed in federal court. In February 2024, plaintiff Stephanie Valley filed Valley v. LGCY Power, LLC (Case No. 2:24-cv-00148) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, seeking collective and class action status.4ClassAction.org. Valley v. LGCY Power LLC Complaint The complaint alleged that LGCY misclassified its “Appointment Setters” as independent contractors, in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and South Carolina wage-and-hour laws.
Valley alleged that the company paid these workers only through commissions, resulting in effective pay well below the federal minimum wage, and failed to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 per week.5ClassAction.org. LGCY Power Independent Contractor Lawsuit The complaint described extensive control over workers, including mandatory uniforms, scripted sales pitches, assigned schedules, and activity monitoring through apps called “Canvas” and “Roosted.”4ClassAction.org. Valley v. LGCY Power LLC Complaint
The case never reached a certification ruling. The parties filed a notice of settlement in March 2025, and on January 27, 2026, the court entered a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, closing the matter.6PACER Monitor. Valley v. LGCY Power, LLC Terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.
Other Cases Involving LGCY Power
A smaller case, Garrett v. LGCY Power, LLC (Case No. 1:25-cv-00089), was filed in the Eastern District of Missouri in May 2025 after being removed from state court. It settled quickly: a notice of settlement was filed in June 2025 and a voluntary dismissal followed in September 2025.7CourtListener. Garrett v. LGCY Power, LLC The public docket does not detail the underlying allegations.
LGCY has also been a plaintiff. In LGCY Power, LLC v. Superior Court (75 Cal.App.5th 844, 2022), the California Court of Appeal addressed a suit LGCY had brought in Utah against a former sales manager, Michael Jed Sewell, over non-competition and confidentiality provisions. Sewell, who had worked in California, argued the case belonged in California under Labor Code section 925, which bars employers from requiring California employees to litigate employment disputes elsewhere. The appellate court sided with Sewell, ruling that section 925 applied because his contract had been modified after the statute took effect in 2017, even though LGCY had originally classified him as an independent contractor.8vLex. LGCY Power, LLC v. Superior Court The decision meant California workers in LGCY’s sales operation could challenge the company’s contract terms in California courts regardless of forum-selection clauses pointing to Utah.9FindLaw. LGCY Power LLC v. Superior Court
The New York Attyx Matter and the LGCY Name
A separate New York regulatory action is worth flagging because it involves the LGCY Power name but does not appear to involve LGCY Power itself as a willing participant. Attyx, LLC — formerly SUNco Capital — is a different solar firm with offices in Syosset, New York, and Lehi, Utah, run by co-CEOs Grant Young and Benson Payne. After the New York Public Service Commission ordered Attyx in 2025 to stop marketing solar systems to New York consumers, the PSC found that Attyx appeared to continue operating under the name “LGCY Power.”10New York Public Service Commission. Attyx PSC Final Order
The PSC’s November 17, 2025 Final Order compared an LGCY-branded proposal to Attyx’s own materials and found them “nearly identical,” using Attyx’s own web domain with only the company name swapped out.10New York Public Service Commission. Attyx PSC Final Order11New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Sues Home Solar Power Company and Lenders for Cheating New Yorkers12New York Attorney General. New York v. Attyx LLC Complaint No public response from LGCY Power about Attyx’s use of its brand has been identified in available records.
Consumer Complaints Outside the Courts
Beyond the courtroom, LGCY has drawn a steady volume of consumer complaints. The Better Business Bureau lists 244 complaints against the company over a recent three-year period, with 56 closed in the most recent 12 months. The most common categories are service or repair issues (119), order issues (61), and sales and advertising issues (35).13BBB. LGCY Power BBB Complaints The company holds an A+ BBB rating, which reflects factors other than customer review volume.
Recurring themes include sales representatives allegedly promising energy savings that did not materialize, systems undersized relative to what was sold, roof leaks attributed to installation, and difficulty reaching customer service for follow-up. In one documented case, a customer said an LGCY regional manager acknowledged internally that a system was “significantly undersized” and that a sales representative had misrepresented the product, yet the company told the customer it lacked authority to cancel or modify contracts held by third-party financing entities.13BBB. LGCY Power BBB Complaints In its BBB responses, LGCY has generally maintained that its systems are “producing as designed” and directed customers to review their signed contracts or coordinate with third-party partners for repairs.