The Vacasa lawsuit drawing the most attention right now is a federal securities class action filed in May 2026 by former shareholders, who allege the board misled them into approving the company’s take-private sale to Casago at $5.30 per share. It sits alongside older property-owner litigation over fees and two active attorney investigations — one into the board’s conduct around the merger, another into how Vacasa handled owner payments in Washington and California.
The Shareholder Class Action Over the Casago Sale
On May 1, 2026, Monteverde & Associates filed Hartsoe v. Vacasa, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, case number 3:26-cv-00852-IM, before Judge Karin J. Immergut.1PR Newswire. Monteverde & Associates PC Has Filed a Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Former Shareholders of Vacasa2PACER Monitor. Hartsoe v. Vacasa, Inc. et al
The complaint names Vacasa and nine former directors and officers: Rob Greyber, Joerg Adams, Ryan Bone, Chad Cohen, Benjamin Levin, Barbara Messing, Jeffrey Parks, Karl Peterson, and Chris Terrill. It alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming Vacasa’s proxy statements contained “materially misleading and incomplete information” about the Casago merger and that the $5.30 per share price was “financially unfair to Vacasa shareholders.”1PR Newswire. Monteverde & Associates PC Has Filed a Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of Former Shareholders of Vacasa
The deal itself closed on April 30, 2025, a day after shareholder approval, with Nasdaq suspending Vacasa’s stock on May 2, 2025.3Nasdaq Trader. Equity Corporate Actions Alert 2025-214 The final price came out of an amended merger agreement announced March 17, 2025, which raised the offer from $5.02 and removed provisions that could have cut the price based on liquidity or the number of properties under management.4Casago. Vacasa Accepts Revised Acquisition Proposal From Casago at $5.30 Per Share
Where the Case Stands
All ten defendants returned waivers of service by mid-June 2026. On June 9, the parties filed a joint motion on scheduling, which Judge Immergut granted on June 15. The order vacated the original response deadlines. A lead plaintiff must be appointed first; that plaintiff then has 30 days to file an amended complaint or say none is coming, and defendants have 45 days to respond. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff had to seek appointment by June 30, 2026.2PACER Monitor. Hartsoe v. Vacasa, Inc. et al
A Separate Fiduciary Duty Investigation
Rigrodsky Law, P.A. has been separately investigating Vacasa’s board for “possible breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of law” tied to the Casago acquisition. The firm’s public materials cite the original $5.02 per share figure and solicit former shareholders to authorize possible litigation. No complaint from that investigation had been filed as of June 2026.5Rigrodsky Law. Vacasa, Inc.
The 2017 Property-Owner Lawsuit
The merger case is not the first class action Vacasa has faced. On August 31, 2017, Oregon homeowner Barbara Fisher filed a $3 million suit in Multnomah County Circuit Court seeking class certification on behalf of other owners whose homes Vacasa managed.6OregonLive. Vacasa Sued Over Vacation Rent
Fisher’s contract called for a flat 35% commission on rental income. The complaint alleged that Vacasa layered additional charges onto guests — booking fees of roughly 10% of the nightly rate, pet fees, hot tub fees, and early check-in or late check-out fees — and kept those amounts rather than sharing them with owners, characterizing the charges as “disguised rent” that pushed Vacasa’s effective share to about 50% of total guest payments. The suit brought claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of Oregon consumer protection statutes at ORS 646.607–608, and it also challenged Vacasa’s rate-optimization system as exercising pricing discretion in ways that “defied the reasonable expectations” of homeowners.6OregonLive. Vacasa Sued Over Vacation Rent7VRM Intel. $3M Lawsuit Against Vacasa Serves Warning to Vacation Rental Managers Vacasa said at the time that it believed the claims “have no merit.”
An Active Investigation in Washington and California
HKM Employment Attorneys and Stutheit Kalin LLC are jointly investigating Vacasa’s dealings with vacation property owners in Washington and California. The concerns track the Fisher case: that Vacasa collected rent from guests under the label of “fees” and failed to share it with owners, potentially breaching management contracts and violating state consumer protection laws.8HKM Employment Attorneys. Vacasa As of June 2026, the investigation is pre-complaint, with attorney Kyann Kalin of Stutheit Kalin as the contact for affected owners.
The Complaints Behind the Cases
Vacasa’s Better Business Bureau file shows 1,272 complaints logged in the three years ending mid-2026, with 230 closed in the most recent 12 months. Service or repair issues account for 646, product issues for 394, and sales and advertising practices for 119.9Better Business Bureau. Vacasa Complaints
Recurring themes in recent filings include property owners reporting that rental proceeds were wired to unauthorized parties, guests reporting false advertising about amenities and cleanliness, and confusion when Vacasa moved properties to new management companies, leaving guests between the old and new operators.9Better Business Bureau. Vacasa Complaints Vacasa holds an A+ rating with the bureau despite the volume.
Owners who terminate a Vacasa management agreement must give 90 days’ written notice, and Vacasa keeps the property’s Airbnb listing, guest reviews, and booking history after termination.10Awning. Vacasa Owner Contract