Sunrun California Lawsuit: $4.3M Settlement and Class Action

The largest California lawsuit against Sunrun’s residential solar business is a multi-county consumer protection action that ended in a $4.3 million stipulated judgment against its subsidiary Vivint Solar in February 2026. A separate class action, Dekker v. Vivint Solar, is moving through the Northern District of California on behalf of homeowners who signed the same long-term contracts. If you signed a Vivint Solar power purchase agreement in California between August 3, 2016, and October 8, 2020, both cases likely concern you.

The $4.3 Million Multi-County Settlement

On February 19, 2026, Riverside County Superior Court entered a stipulated judgment resolving an enforcement action brought jointly by the district attorneys of Riverside, Alameda, Fresno, San Diego, and San Francisco counties. The named defendants are Vivint Solar, Inc., Vivint Solar Holdings, Inc., and Vivint Solar Developer, LLC. The prosecutors opened the case after receiving numerous complaints routed through the California Contractors State License Board.¹

The money splits two ways. Three million dollars was set aside as a restitution fund for California consumers who entered into Vivint Solar power purchase agreements between August 3, 2016, and October 8, 2020. The remaining $1.3 million covers civil penalties and investigative costs shared among the five prosecutors’ offices.²

Vivint Solar settled without admitting liability.³

Who Is Eligible for Restitution

The restitution fund is limited to California consumers whose Vivint Solar power purchase agreements fall inside the August 3, 2016 to October 8, 2020 window. Instructions for filing a claim were posted on both Vivint Solar’s and Sunrun’s consumer-facing websites.²

What Prosecutors Said Vivint Solar Did

The complaint alleged that Vivint Solar misled California homeowners in several connected ways while marketing and selling residential solar power purchase agreements. Sales representatives were accused of misrepresenting the company’s relationship with local utility companies, overstating projected energy savings, and misleading customers about their ability to cancel the agreements after signing.³

The contracts themselves also drew scrutiny. Prosecutors challenged Vivint Solar’s use of liquidated damages provisions triggered by early termination or transfer of a solar lease, and the company’s handling of Spanish-speaking and other non-English-speaking customers who signed English-language paperwork after negotiations in a different language.²

What the Judgment Prohibits Going Forward

Beyond the money, the stipulated judgment imposes permanent injunctive terms on how Vivint Solar can do business in California. The company is barred from:

Obtaining a consumer’s credit report or creating a solar-related account in a consumer’s name without written consent.
Failing to provide a translated copy of the contract in the language actually used during sales negotiations.
Enforcing liquidated damages provisions that do not comply with California Civil Code section 1671.²

Section 1671 is the California statute governing when a contractual liquidated damages clause is enforceable and when it operates as an unlawful penalty. That last prohibition matters because it targets the same termination and transfer fees at the center of the private class action described below.

Dekker v. Vivint Solar: The Class Action

Running on a separate track from the prosecutors’ case is Dekker v. Vivint Solar, a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the Matern Law Group. Named plaintiff Gerrie Dekker alleged that the termination and transfer fee provisions in Vivint Solar’s 20-year contracts function as unlawful liquidated damages under California law, and that the company engaged in deceptive sales practices.⁴

Judge William Alsup granted class certification for a first group of California consumers, denied Vivint Solar’s motion for summary judgment, and rejected the company’s argument that Sunrun’s 2020 acquisition of Vivint Solar had rendered the claims moot.⁴

Individual Arbitration Claims

Not every Vivint Solar customer can join the class. The power purchase agreements contain mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers, and the Matern Law Group has been pursuing individual arbitration on behalf of what it describes as hundreds of California homeowners. Through arbitration the firm seeks contract cancellation, contract modification, or monetary compensation, and it contends that Sunrun is responsible for covering the arbitration costs under the terms of the agreements themselves.⁵

The practical effect: if your contract forces you into arbitration, you may still have a path to relief, just an individual one rather than as part of the certified class.

Where Sunrun Fits In

Vivint Solar became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunrun on October 8, 2020, which is also the closing date of the restitution window in the multi-county settlement. The stipulated judgment expressly states that Sunrun is not a party to the enforcement action, even though the restitution claim instructions were posted on Sunrun’s website as well as Vivint Solar’s.² In the class action, Judge Alsup rejected the argument that the acquisition mooted the plaintiffs’ claims, keeping the case alive against the Vivint Solar entities.⁴

A Note on the TCPA Robocall Settlements

Two other cases involving Sunrun were filed in the Northern District of California, but they are national telemarketing settlements, not California consumer-protection cases. In Slovin v. Sunrun Inc. (Case No. 4:15-cv-05340, N.D. Cal.), Sunrun and its subsidiary Clean Energy Experts LLC agreed to a $5.5 million settlement with people who received unsolicited robocalls while their numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry, and agreed to merge internal do-not-call lists, stop the offending robocall practices, and monitor telemarketing for four years.⁶ In Loftus v. Sunrun Inc. (Case No. 3:19-cv-01608, N.D. Cal.), a second $5.5 million settlement received final approval on May 11, 2021, covering people who received marketing calls or texts placed through a dialing platform from Sunrun or from lead-generation companies acting on its behalf between September 2018 and September 2020. Sunrun denied all allegations of wrongdoing in that case.⁷ Eligibility in those cases turned on receiving the calls or texts, not on being a California resident or a Vivint Solar customer.

If You Have a California Vivint Solar or Sunrun Contract

Check your contract date first. A power purchase agreement dated between August 3, 2016, and October 8, 2020, puts you inside the restitution window from the multi-county settlement, and the district attorneys directed consumers to file through instructions posted on the Vivint Solar and Sunrun websites.⁸ 4⁵ Because most contracts contain arbitration clauses and class action waivers, whether you proceed as a class member or in individual arbitration depends on the terms of your own agreement.

1
Fresno County District Attorney’s Office. Fresno County District Attorney Joins Statewide $4.3 Million Consumer Protection Settlement With Vivint Solar
2
Riverside County District Attorney’s Office. Vivint Solar California Settlement
3
San Francisco District Attorney’s Office. District Attorney Brooke Jenkins Announces Settlement With Vivint Solar
4
Matern Law Group. Class Action Challenges Vivint Solar Termination Fees
5
Solar Consumer Lawsuit. Solar Consumer Lawsuit
6
Top Class Actions. Robocalls Class Action Lawsuit Settled With Sunrun Solar
7
Top Class Actions. Sunrun Solar Marketing Calls TCPA Class Action Settlement
8
Riverside County District Attorney’s Office. Vivint Solar California Settlementa>