Vivint Solar Lawsuit: $4.3M Settlement and State Consent Orders

The Vivint Solar lawsuit landscape spans a $4.3 million multi-county settlement in California announced in February 2026, a federal class action that rewrote nearly 1,000 California contracts, and separate state enforcement actions in New York, New Jersey, and Arizona. The through-line is the same set of allegations: sales representatives posing as utility employees, inflated savings projections, unauthorized credit checks, and buyout terms that trapped homeowners in 20-year power purchase agreements. If you signed a Vivint Solar contract, more than one of these cases may affect you, and two restitution funds are still open.

The $4.3 Million California Settlement

District attorneys from Riverside, Alameda, Fresno, San Diego, and San Francisco counties announced the settlement on February 19, 2026, filed in Riverside County Superior Court as case number CVRI2506720.¹² It covers residential power purchase agreements signed between August 3, 2016, and October 8, 2020.

Prosecutors alleged Vivint Solar misrepresented its relationships with local utilities, overstated projected energy savings, and misled customers about their ability to cancel. The joint prosecution followed numerous complaints filed with the California Contractors State License Board.³

The $4.3 million breaks into three parts: $1.05 million in civil penalties, $250,000 in shared investigative costs, and a $3 million restitution fund for eligible California consumers who entered qualifying agreements during the covered period.³ The fund remains open for four years to resolve consumer claims.⁴

The stipulated judgment also bars Vivint Solar from pulling credit reports or opening solar-related accounts without prior written consent, from failing to provide written contract translations in the language a deal was negotiated in, and from enforcing liquidated-damages clauses that violate California Civil Code section 1671.¹ The judgment was entered without an admission of liability, and Sunrun, which acquired Vivint Solar in 2020, was not a party.²

Dekker v. Vivint Solar: Contract Buyout Fees

California homeowner Gerrie Dekker and nine other customers challenged Vivint Solar’s 20-year power purchase agreements in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that the termination fee provisions effectively required consumers to pay out the remainder of their contracts, often tens of thousands of dollars, to exit early.⁵⁶

Arbitration clauses complicated the litigation. In a 2020 ruling, Judge William Alsup found the contracts delegated questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator, sending most plaintiffs to arbitration. One plaintiff, Juan Bautista, was allowed to remain in court because he spoke only Spanish and was presented with an English-only contract, meaning he had never agreed to arbitrate.⁷ The Ninth Circuit later compelled a related dispute back to arbitration, its second reversal in a Vivint Solar contract case.⁸

Judge Alsup certified a class of nearly 1,000 California homeowners and rejected Vivint Solar’s argument that the Sunrun acquisition mooted the request for injunctive relief.⁶ The case settled in 2022 and received final approval on August 23, 2023. Instead of cash payments, the settlement modified the “Version 1” power purchase agreements, cutting the buyout price from $7 per watt to $4 per watt with a 5 percent annual discount. Dekker received a $500 service award.⁹

New York Attorney General Settlement

The New York Attorney General reached an assurance of discontinuance with Vivint Solar (Assurance No. 19-161) that produced the most detailed catalogue of alleged misconduct in any of the cases.¹⁰

Investigators found that sales representatives told homeowners they worked for the local utility, quoted savings of 10 to 30 percent that were often unattainable, failed to disclose that advertised savings applied only to the first year of a 20-year contract, and concealed that PPA energy rates compounded at 2.9 percent annually, amounting to a 70 percent cost increase over the full term. The investigation also documented forged electronic signatures, sales reps inserting their own email addresses into customer accounts to block access to contract documents, binding contracts pitched as “preliminary paperwork,” and pressure on elderly consumers.¹⁰

The settlement required Vivint Solar to include a 20-year rate chart in every sales presentation and contract, disclose the assumptions behind savings projections, let customers review hard copies before signing electronically, and conduct post-sale welcome calls without the salesperson present. Customers gained the right to cancel until installation begins, with a minimum five-business-day guarantee. Consumers aged 70 and older received extra protections, including a ban on door-to-door solicitation after sunset and a right to cancel and receive full restitution if deceptive tactics were used.¹⁰

New Jersey Consent Order

New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs reached a consent order with Vivint Solar Developer, LLC in August 2019 covering utility impersonation, false savings claims, unauthorized credit checks, high-pressure tactics, confusing contracts that waived legal protections, and what investigators called “shoddy installation.”¹¹

The monetary terms were modest: $69,300 in civil penalties ($20,000 suspended), $35,168.78 in costs and fees, and $17,483.75 in restitution. The operational conditions were larger. Vivint Solar had to hire a full-time compliance officer for a year, rewrite contracts in plain language, investigate complaints about deceptive solicitation, and offer free system removal to affected customers when complaints were substantiated. When a specific salesperson drew a confirmed complaint, the company had to audit 10 percent of that representative’s recent contracts, with the possibility of a full audit.¹¹

Arizona Consent Agreement

In May 2025, Arizona Attorney General Kristin K. Mayes reached a stipulated consent agreement with both Sunrun and Vivint Solar to resolve allegations that they violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act in solar marketing and sales from roughly 2009 through 2023. Unlike the California case, this one names Sunrun as a defendant.¹²

Terms include $600,000 in civil penalties, $50,000 in attorney fees and costs, and $600,000 for consumer restitution administered through a two-year claims process. Any unclaimed restitution rolls into Arizona’s Consumer Protection revolving fund. The defendants denied the allegations but waived their right to trial, and Sunrun stated it no longer directly markets or sells new systems in Arizona.¹²

What Customers Have Alleged Across Cases

The complaints echo one another across states. Sales representatives were accused of identifying themselves as employees of the local utility company. Savings figures were presented without the assumptions behind them and without disclosure that they applied only to the first year of a contract that would escalate for two decades. Credit reports were pulled without clear authorization; in the Maryland federal case Shackleford v. Vivint Solar, a homeowner alleged she signed an iPad thinking she was confirming a sales visit and only later discovered a hard credit inquiry.¹³ Contracts were pitched as “preliminary paperwork,” and buyout provisions turned early cancellation into a five-figure decision.

Does Sunrun’s Ownership Change Who Is Liable?

Sunrun completed its acquisition of Vivint Solar on October 8, 2020, and Vivint Solar continues to exist as a wholly owned subsidiary.¹⁴¹⁵ Whether Sunrun is named as a defendant has varied. California prosecutors specifically excluded Sunrun from the 2026 settlement. Arizona included both companies for conduct that spanned the pre- and post-acquisition years. A separate Connecticut Attorney General lawsuit filed against Sunrun in July 2024 concerned Sunrun’s own operations and third-party dealers rather than legacy Vivint Solar conduct.¹⁶

Massachusetts and Maryland: Ongoing Activity

Since 2023, Sunrun has filed more than 420 lawsuits against Massachusetts customers for alleged contract breaches, often seeking amounts approaching $100,000 for breaking 20- or 25-year agreements. At least two dozen homeowners have sued the company back, some with consumer fraud claims. Sunrun has dropped suits or forgiven debts in several instances after media inquiries. State lawmakers proposed SD2579 to address exploitative solar contracts, and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office has taken roughly 170 Sunrun complaints since 2023.¹⁷

In Maryland, a 2026 investigation documented homeowners reporting improperly installed brackets, unnecessary roof holes, and water damage. The Maryland Attorney General’s office logged 122 complaints about Vivint Solar and Sunrun over four years; 11 cited unsatisfactory workmanship, and 26 remained open as of June 2026.¹⁸

If You Signed a Vivint Solar Contract

California residents who signed a residential power purchase agreement between August 3, 2016, and October 8, 2020, may be eligible for restitution from the $3 million California fund, which is open for four years from the February 2026 settlement. Arizona customers may file through the two-year claims process under the 2025 consent agreement. California class members in Dekker received modified buyout terms rather than cash. New York and New Jersey settlements produced contract reforms rather than open restitution funds, though customers in those states with substantiated deceptive-solicitation complaints may still have removal or cancellation rights under those orders.

1
San Francisco District Attorney. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins Announces Settlement With Vivint Solar
2
Riverside County District Attorney. Vivint Solar California Settlement
3
Fresno County District Attorney. Fresno County District Attorney Joins Statewide $4.3 Million Consumer Protection Settlement With Vivint Solar
4
YourCentralValley.com. Vivint Solar Settlement
5
SEC EDGAR. Vivint Solar SEC Filing, Dekker Litigation Disclosure
6
Matern Law Group. Class Action Challenges Vivint Solar Termination Fees
7
Casemine. Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc., No. C 19-07918 WHA
8
Law360. 9th Circ. Sends Vivint Solar Back to Arb in 2nd Reversal
9
Midpage. Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc.
10
New York Attorney General. Vivint Solar Settlement With NYAG
11
New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Press Release: Vivint Solar Settlement
12
Arizona Attorney General. Sunrun Stipulated Consent Agreement
13
U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. Shackleford v. Vivint Solar Developer LLC, Memorandum Opinion
14
Sunrun Investor Relations. Sunrun Completes Acquisition of Vivint Solar
15
SEC EDGAR. Sunrun Inc. Form 8-K, Vivint Solar Merger
16
Connecticut Attorney General. Attorney General Tong Sues Sunrun
17
WGBH News. Solar Panel Company Accused of Shady Business in Massachusetts
18
WMAR-2 News. Customers Blame Sloppy Installation of Solar Panels for Damage to Their Homes