San Francisco, CA – San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announced today that her office, together with the District Attorneys of Riverside, San Diego, Alameda, and Fresno Counties, settled a consumer protection action against Vivint Solar, Inc., and related Vivint entities (“Vivint Solar”).  Vivint Solar has been ordered to pay $1,300,000 million in civil penalties and investigative costs and to set aside an additional fund to cover valid requests for restitution. 

The complaint, filed in Riverside County Superior Court, alleges that in advertising and promoting its solar energy systems and the terms of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), Vivint Solar misrepresented the agreements or failed to make adequate disclosures to avoid misleading consumers, including by:

• Misrepresenting the relationship between Vivint Solar and the local utility company;
• Misrepresenting energy or costs savings; and
• Misrepresenting consumers’ ability to cancel the contract or agreement in question.

“Installing a solar system on your home is an important financial decision,” said District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “Although consumers can benefit from the purchase of household solar energy, companies selling such products have a duty to be honest and upfront, particularly about the savings a customer might reasonably expect to receive and the company’s affiliation, if any, with the local utility.”

The allegations arose principally from PPAs sold by the company to California consumers during the period of August 2016, to October 2020. Generally speaking, a PPA is a contract by which a solar company installs and maintains the household solar system and the customer purchases the system’s electric output from the company for a set price. On October 8, 2020, Vivint Solar became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sunrun, Inc. (“Sunrun”).  Sunrun is not a party to this law enforcement action. 

The stipulated judgment prohibits Vivint Solar from making these kinds of misrepresentations. The judgment also enjoins the company from engaging in other unlawful business practices, such as:

1. 1. Requesting, ordering, or otherwise obtaining a consumer credit report without first obtaining the consumer’s written consent;
   2. Creating accounts related to the purchase, installation, servicing, or lease of any solar energy system without first obtaining the consumer’s written consent;
   3. Failing to provide translations of written contracts in the language in which the contract was negotiated; and
   4. Enforcing unlawful liquidated damages provision in its agreements or contracts.

Without admitting liability, Vivint Solar agreed to pay $1,300,000 million in civil penalties and investigative costs. It also agreed to set aside a restitution fund of $3,000,000 to cover valid requests for restitution from California consumers regarding solar energy systems sold by Vivint Solar or the terms of any Vivint Solar PPA between August 3, 2016, and October 8, 2020.  Notification to consumers of the provisions of the Stipulated Judgment, including time limitations on making a claim and methods to submit a claim for restitution, will be provided by Vivint Solar and available on the consumer-facing website of Vivint Solar, Inc. and Sunrun.

Riverside Superior Court Case Number CVRI2506720

###