Vivint Lawsuit History: $189M Verdict, FTC and DOJ Settlements

Vivint Smart Home has faced a long string of lawsuits and government enforcement actions, with the largest results including a $189.7 million jury verdict for a competitor, a $20 million Federal Trade Commission settlement over credit report fraud and identity theft, a $3.2 million Department of Justice settlement over false statements to lenders, and enforcement actions by 16 state attorneys general between 2009 and 2022. Most Vivint lawsuits trace back to the same source: door-to-door sales practices that regulators, competitors, and consumers have called deceptive.¹

The $189.7 Million CPI Security Verdict

The largest judgment against Vivint came from CPI Security Systems, a Charlotte-based competitor that sued in September 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. CPI’s case described a specific playbook. Vivint sales representatives told CPI customers that Vivint had purchased CPI, that CPI was going out of business and would stop monitoring their alarms, or that Vivint had manufactured the existing equipment and needed to perform an “upgrade.” Some representatives led homeowners to believe they were CPI employees, and customers signed Vivint contracts without realizing they were switching companies.¹

After a two-week trial in early 2023, the jury found Vivint liable under the federal Lanham Act for false advertising, North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, common-law unfair competition, and tortious interference with contracts. It awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages. CPI identified 565 customers who switched because of these tactics; expert testimony put the real figure above 11,000. The jury found Vivint had earned roughly $52 million in net profits from targeting CPI’s customers.²

Vivint appealed. On July 22, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the entire judgment. Judge Paul Niemeyer, writing for the panel, held that CPI did not need to prove it personally relied on the false statements because its claim rested on unfair competition, not fraud. The court also rejected Vivint’s reading of North Carolina’s punitive damages cap, ruling the cap applies to the total compensatory award regardless of which specific claims support punitives.³

FTC $20 Million Settlement Over Credit Report Fraud

In April 2021, the FTC and DOJ announced a $20 million settlement with Vivint over violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the FTC’s Red Flags Rule. According to the FTC, when prospective customers failed credit checks for Vivint financing, sales representatives used a practice they called “white paging.” They opened a White Pages app, found people with the same or similar name, and ran those strangers’ credit histories to qualify the original customer. In other cases, representatives added friends or relatives as co-signers without their knowledge.⁴

When those fraudulently opened accounts defaulted, Vivint sold the resulting debts to third-party collectors, who then pursued the innocent people whose identities had been used. Many filed identity theft complaints with the FTC.⁵ The settlement broke down as $15 million in civil penalties, described at the time as the largest ever paid to resolve FCRA violations under the FTC Act, and $5 million in equitable monetary relief. Vivint was ordered to create a task force to verify accounts, investigate identity theft reports, and monitor employees.⁶

In August 2023, the FTC opened a claims process, notifying more than 9,000 potentially eligible people whose accounts were opened between 2016 and 2019. By December 2024, the agency reported it was distributing nearly $500,000 in refund checks to 470 consumers with valid claims.⁷

DOJ $3.2 Million Settlement Over False Statements to Lenders

In January 2021, the DOJ reached a separate $3.2 million settlement with Vivint over allegations that the company made false statements to federally insured banks. Between 2017 and 2020, sales representatives used their own personal funds to cover initial customer financing payments and then reported those payments to lenders as if the borrowers had made them. The effect was to make customers look more creditworthy than they were. The settlement resolved the allegations without a formal determination of liability.⁸

Lawsuits From Other Security Competitors

The CPI verdict was not an isolated dispute. Other home security companies have sued Vivint over the same conduct.

ADT sued Vivint in federal court in Miami in 2020, alleging that Vivint representatives told ADT customers they were there to “update” or “upgrade” existing ADT equipment when they were actually replacing it, and that ADT had been bought out or was going out of business. ADT brought Lanham Act, unfair competition, trade disparagement, and tortious interference claims.⁹ The case terminated in June 2023.¹⁰ ADT and Vivint had previously settled a similar lawsuit in 2017 for $10 million, with Vivint making no admission of liability.¹¹

In March 2023, Oklahoma-based Alert 360 sued Vivint in the Northern District of Oklahoma, seeking more than $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The allegations tracked those in the CPI and ADT cases: Vivint representatives telling Alert 360 customers that Vivint had purchased Alert 360, that Alert 360 had gone out of business, or that Vivint was there to upgrade equipment.¹²

State Attorney General Actions

The Fourth Circuit noted that 16 state attorneys general brought enforcement actions against Vivint between 2009 and 2022. The publicly reported penalties include:

Arkansas fined the company $40,850 in 2009 for more than 40 violations.
Louisiana issued a $50,000 fine for using unlicensed employees, violating a cease-and-desist order, and deceptive practices.
Minnesota imposed a $25,000 civil penalty for licensing violations.
Oregon settled for $60,000 over misleading and aggressive sales practices.
South Carolina fined the company $5,000 for maintaining a license that had been canceled in Louisiana.¹³
Ohio resolved enforcement actions in 2013 alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, including overcharging monitoring fees and failing to honor cancellation notices.¹⁴

More recently, on July 31, 2025, the New Jersey Attorney General announced that Vivint agreed to pay $200,000 and adopt operational reforms to resolve consumer complaints dating back to 2008. The agreement bars Vivint from making false claims about limited-time offers, misrepresenting local crime statistics to pressure sales, or telling customers it has “taken over” their existing alarm account. Sales representatives must wear identification badges, and the company must fully disclose all contract terms before a customer signs.¹⁵

Consumer and Employee Class Actions

A private class action, Sullen, et al. v. Vivint, Inc. (Case No. 01-CV-2023-903893), targeted the same credit report conduct that drew the FTC’s attention. The proposed class covered individuals whose credit information Vivint accessed without authorization to create accounts between January 2016 and January 2024, split into a subclass of people who were later pursued by debt collectors and a subclass of those who were not. The claim deadline was June 7, 2024, with a final approval hearing scheduled for April 23, 2024.¹⁶

On the employment side, Crabtree, et al. v. Vivint, Inc. (Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2020-01141910) brought claims from current and former sales workers who said the company misclassified them as independent contractors or “direct sellers,” failed to pay for training and non-sales work, denied overtime and meal breaks, and imposed unlawful wage forfeiture terms. Vivint agreed to a $6.5 million settlement covering a class period from June 2016 to June 2022, with a final approval hearing set for December 2023.¹⁷

Other Recent Litigation

In October 2023, a federal jury in East Texas found that Vivint willfully infringed doorbell camera patents held by SkyBell Technologies and ordered Vivint to pay $45 million. A Vivint spokesperson said the company planned to appeal.¹⁸

In April 2026, plaintiff Kenia Gonzalez filed a class action against Vivint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging the company sent spam emails with forged headers and deceptive subject lines through affiliate marketers and used tracking pixels on its website in violation of California’s Trap and Trace Law and Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks $1,000 per email sent. As of June 2026, Vivint had filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.¹⁹

Who Owns Vivint Now

Vivint is no longer independent. In March 2023, Houston-based NRG Energy completed a $2.8 billion acquisition of Vivint and inherited its ongoing legal disputes.¹¹

1
Carolina Journal. Appeals Court Affirms $189 Million Ruling for Charlotte-Based Firm in Home Security Fight
2
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. CPI Security Systems v. Vivint Smart Home, No. 24-1120
3
Business North Carolina. Federal Court Upholds CPI Security’s $189.7M Verdict
4
FTC. Smart Home Monitoring Company Vivint Will Pay $20 Million to Settle FTC Charges It Misused Consumer Credit Reports
5
FTC. FTC Announces Claims Process for Consumers Whose Credit Reports Were Misused by Home Security Firm Vivint
6
U.S. Department of Justice. Vivint Smart Home to Pay $20 Million for Violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act
7
FTC. Vivint Smart Home Settlement Refunds
8
U.S. Department of Justice. Vivint Smart Homes Inc. to Pay $3.2 Million to Resolve Allegations of False Statements to Federally Insured Financial Institutions
9
GovInfo. ADT LLC v. Vivint Smart Home Inc., Case No. 20-cv-23391
10
CourtListener. ADT LLC v. Vivint Smart Home Inc., Docket
11
SDM Magazine. NRG Finalizes Deal for Vivint; Security Insiders Share Their Views
12
SDM Magazine. Alert 360 Sues Vivint, Seeks More Than $10M-Plus Damages
13
FrontPoint Security. Home Alarm Sales: Better Business Bureau Issues Warning on Company After Name Change
14
Ohio Attorney General. AG Files Enforcement Actions Against Home Security Companies
15
New Jersey Attorney General. AG Platkin: Vivint Smart Home Inc. Agrees to Pay $200,000 to Resolve Allegations of Deceptive and Unlawful Practices
16
Vivint FCRA Settlement. Sullen et al. v. Vivint Inc. Settlement
17
CPT Group. Crabtree et al. v. Vivint Inc. Class Notice
18
Fox 13 Salt Lake City. Jury Orders Vivint to Pay $45 Million in Doorbell Tech Lawsuit
19
PACER Monitor. Gonzalez v. Vivint Smart Home LLC