Offerpad lawsuits and related legal matters include a pending federal class action over alleged unwanted marketing calls, a trademark infringement case the company filed and then settled within months, and two shareholder investigations that were announced publicly but never turned into filed suits. The company, an Arizona-based iBuyer that went public through a SPAC merger in 2021 and trades on the NYSE as OPAD, has also drawn consistent consumer complaints and, in March 2026, a non-compliance notice from the exchange over its stock price.1Offerpad Solutions Inc. Board of Directors
The Robertson TCPA Class Action
The most significant pending case against Offerpad is Robertson v. Offerpad Brokerage CA, Inc., filed in October 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case number 5:24-cv-02138.2Law360. Robertson v. Offerpad Brokerage CA Inc. Plaintiff Erin Robertson brought the suit as a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the federal statute that restricts unsolicited telemarketing calls and text messages.3PACER Monitor. Robertson v. Offerpad Brokerage CA Inc., Complaint
The available public record does not include specific allegations about the messages or calls at issue, but a TCPA claim of this kind rests on the argument that a company contacted consumers without proper consent. The statute allows recovery of $500 per violation and up to $1,500 for each willful violation, which is why class certification matters so much in these cases. No outcome or settlement has been reported.
The Offerland Trademark Case
In January 2024, Offerpad was the plaintiff rather than the defendant. Offerpad Holdings LLC and Offerpad Solutions Inc. sued Offerland Technologies Incorporated, along with individuals Amir Abdi, Hamidreza Etebarian, and Roz Seyednejad, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.4PACER Monitor. Offerpad Holdings LLC et al. v. Offerland Technologies Incorporated et al. The complaint alleged trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114.5CourtListener. Offerpad Holdings LLC v. Offerland Technologies Incorporated
The dispute ended fast. On May 7, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, and the case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. Each side bore its own attorneys’ fees. Stipulated dismissals of this kind typically indicate a private settlement, though no terms were made public.
Shareholder Investigations That Never Became Lawsuits
Two separate plaintiff-side securities firms have announced investigations into Offerpad or its predecessor entity, and neither has produced a filed case in the public record.
In March 2021, Brodsky & Smith announced an investigation into the board of Supernova Partners Acquisition Company, the blank-check SPAC merging with Offerpad. The firm questioned whether the deal was structured fairly, noting that Supernova shareholders would retain only 11.9% of the combined company.6Yahoo Finance. Shareholder Notice: Brodsky & Smith, LLC Investigation Into Supernova Partners A follow-up notice appeared in May 2021.7Yahoo Finance. Shareholder Notice: Brodsky & Smith Announces Investigation
In August 2023, Levi & Korsinsky announced its own investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty by Offerpad’s officers and directors, without identifying the specific conduct under review.8PR Newswire. Shareholder Alert: Levi & Korsinsky Investigation Into Offerpad Solutions9PR Newswire. Shareholder Alert: Levi & Korsinsky Investigation Into Offerpad Solutions
These announcements are a routine practice. Plaintiff firms publicize potential claims to attract affected shareholders while evaluating whether a case is viable. When no lawsuit follows, it usually means the firm did not find sufficient grounds or did not draw enough interest to justify filing.
Consumer Complaints About Home Sales and Purchases
Beyond formal litigation, Offerpad has drawn a steady stream of complaints from people who sold homes to it or bought homes from it. The Better Business Bureau’s profile for the Tempe, Arizona company lists 14 complaints over the three years ending in mid-2026, with 11 answered and three resolved.10Better Business Bureau. Offerpad BBB Complaints
The recurring themes are worth knowing if you are considering a transaction with the company:
- Buyers alleged undisclosed property defects after purchase, including water damage, slab leaks, and improper plumbing or flooring work.
- Sellers reported that Offerpad reduced its offer shortly before a scheduled closing date.
- Consumers described confusion over service fees, alleged unauthorized changes to paperwork, and disputes over cancellation terms.
- Some complaints described difficulty reaching management about repair claims or utility transfers after a sale.
Fourteen complaints across three years is not an unusually large number for a multi-state real estate business, but the pattern of late-stage offer reductions and post-sale disclosure disputes is a recognized frustration with the iBuyer model generally.
NYSE Non-Compliance and the Risk of Renewed Shareholder Claims
On March 6, 2026, Offerpad disclosed that the NYSE had notified it of non-compliance with Section 802.01C of the exchange’s listing manual, because the Class A common stock had averaged a closing price below $1.00 over a 30-trading-day period.11Offerpad Solutions Inc. Offerpad Receives Notice of Non-Compliance With NYSE Trading Share Price Listing Rule That is a steep drop from the roughly $1.7 billion market capitalization the company carried at its 2021 public listing.12Yahoo Finance. Ownership Structure of Offerpad Solutions Inc.
The notice does not cause immediate delisting. Offerpad has a six-month cure period and told the exchange it intends to regain compliance. The company is weighing a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-5 and 1-for-50, subject to shareholder approval at an annual meeting scheduled for June 3, 2026.13Stock Titan. Offerpad Solutions Inc. Definitive Proxy Statement Failure to cure could lead to delisting, reduce trading liquidity, and potentially attract new shareholder claims tied to alleged misrepresentations during or after the SPAC merger.