Sunrun Is Under Investigation. Here's What California Homeowners With a Sunrun Lease or PPA Need to Know.

Sunrun Is Under Investigation. Here's What California Homeowners With a Sunrun Lease or PPA Need to Know.

If you're a California homeowner locked into a Sunrun solar lease or power purchase agreement and something about your deal has never quite added up — the savings that didn't materialize, the utility bill that didn't shrink, the salesperson who made promises the contract doesn't back up — you're not imagining things.

Sunrun is now under active investigation by multiple state attorneys general, federal regulators, and a growing number of courts. Here's what's happening, what it means for California customers specifically, and whether your contract may be affected.

Update, October 26, 2026: On October 23, Connecticut’s Attorney General announced settlements with Sunrun, Elevate Solar Solutions, and two salespeople, including a $300,000 payment by Sunrun and a 60-day claims-investigation process for affected Connecticut customers. The case against Bright Planet Solar remains pending, and the defendants did not admit liability. See what the settlement means for California homeowners.

Update — September 2026: Since this investigation was first announced, it's moved from paperwork to litigation for at least one company. CAM Solar — one of the four companies named in the original Texas Attorney General investigation — has now actually been sued by the AG's office, the first company from that April initiative to face a formal lawsuit rather than just a document demand. Separately, a CBS News Texas investigation independently identified 123 complaints filed against Sunrun specifically over a five-year period, a figure distinct from the AG's own complaint count.

What Did the Texas Attorney General Investigate Sunrun For?

On April 3, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a major initiative and issued Civil Investigative Demands to Sunrun, Freedom Forever, Lone Star Solar Services, and CAM Solar as part of a sweeping effort targeting deceptive practices in the residential solar industry. A Civil Investigative Demand — the state equivalent of a federal subpoena — requires the company to turn over internal documents, communications, and records related to how it sells solar to homeowners.

The AG's office cited over 100 formal complaints filed directly with the Office of the Attorney General against these companies, plus thousands more documented online. The companies are being investigated for potential violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act, with allegations that include:

• Overstating projected energy bill savings
• Misrepresenting the performance of solar panel systems
• Failing to clearly disclose contract terms, early termination fees, and warranty obligations
• Using independent dealer networks to make verbal promises the written contract doesn't honor

That initiative has since produced its first real lawsuit: CAM Solar, headquartered in San Antonio, was sued by Paxton's office in June 2026, following directly from the April CID. The lawsuit alleges the company misrepresented energy savings, product efficacy, and warranty terms — and cites at least one case where solar panels reportedly detached from a customer's roof within a year of installation, damaging both that home and a neighboring property. It's the clearest sign yet that this investigation is producing consequences beyond document requests.

Does a Texas Investigation Matter If I'm in California?

It matters more than you might think — for two reasons.

First, Sunrun is a national company headquartered in San Francisco. Its sales playbook, training materials, and contract structures are largely uniform across the 22+ states it operates in. If Texas investigators are finding systemic misrepresentation in how Sunrun sells solar, California customers were almost certainly exposed to the same tactics.

Second, and more directly: California's own Attorney General has independently issued document subpoenas to Sunrun. That investigation is ongoing.

Here is the current legal landscape surrounding Sunrun specifically as it relates to California and federal courts:

• Northern District of California: Active federal cases remain in litigation. Judges have denied most of Sunrun's motions to dismiss, and class certification has been granted in at least one major case.
• California Attorney General: Document subpoenas have been issued to Sunrun as part of an ongoing consumer protection review.
• Colorado Attorney General: A formal investigation has been announced.
• New Mexico: The state's consumer protection division is reviewing complaints.
• Federal Trade Commission: The FTC's review of solar industry sales practices — which names Sunrun among the companies under scrutiny — is ongoing, though no formal enforcement action has been announced as of June 2026.
• Connecticut Attorney General: AG William Tong sued Sunrun along with two of its dealer partners, Bright Planet Solar and Elevate Solar Solutions, alleging that homeowners were locked into long-term contracts without their full consent and that some installations were never completed or activated.
• Better Business Bureau: Sunrun has accumulated over 4,000 consumer complaints with the BBB — one of the highest totals of any solar company in the country.

Sunrun has publicly maintained that its sales practices are compliant with applicable law. The company has implemented internal sales training reforms — which plaintiffs in active cases argue is itself an acknowledgment of prior problems.

What the Federal Court Record and Investigative Press Show

The documented pattern extends beyond regulatory investigations. Federal court dockets and independent investigative journalism provide a separate layer of evidence that California homeowners can point to when building a cancellation case.

In Massachusetts, two separate lawsuits are working through the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts naming Sunrun directly: Karam v. Sunrun Inc. (Case No. 1:2024-cv-11112) and Murphy v. Sunrun, Inc. et al (Case No. 4:2025-cv-11708). These are not class actions filed by law firms fishing for plaintiffs — they are individual homeowner cases that made it past initial court screening and into active litigation.

Investigative reporting by WGBH Boston, published in April 2025, documented hundreds of consumer complaints filed against Sunrun with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. The report included direct interviews with homeowners describing the same patterns being investigated in California and Texas: savings projections that didn't hold, verbal promises that didn't appear in the written contract, and high-pressure signing environments where customers felt they couldn't slow down or ask questions. A WGBH follow-up in May 2025 described the investigation's methodology — court document review, homeowner interviews, and complaint record analysis — and the involvement of Boston University's BU SPARK! program in data review.

A January 2026 report by Law360 covered a separate Massachusetts lawsuit specifically alleging that Sunrun misclassified its sales representatives as independent contractors. The structural significance: when a sales rep makes a verbal promise that doesn't appear in the contract and a customer later complains, Sunrun's independent contractor structure creates an argument that the company isn't responsible for what the rep said. Regulators and plaintiffs in multiple states are challenging that structure directly.

If a Sunrun salesperson promised you something your contract doesn't reflect, that structural gap is exactly the kind of thing worth a real review — not something to just live with. Request a free contract review →

Also worth noting for California homeowners: the February 2026 settlement by the Riverside County District Attorney's office involving Vivint Solar — which became a wholly owned Sunrun subsidiary on October 8, 2020 — cited specific alleged violations that map directly onto the complaint categories active in Massachusetts and Texas. Those included misrepresenting relationships with utilities like PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E; misrepresenting cancellation rights at signing; obtaining credit reports without written consent; failing to provide contract translations in the language of the sale; and enforcing liquidated-damages provisions alleged to be noncompliant with California law. The Riverside County DA's office noted that Sunrun was not a party to that action. The documented conduct is consistent with what investigators across multiple jurisdictions are examining today.

The combined weight of Texas, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Connecticut, Massachusetts federal courts, the FTC, and the Riverside County DA settlement is not a coincidence. It is a documented pattern — which is precisely what makes individual California cancellation claims stronger when properly documented and filed.

What Specific Practices Are Being Investigated?

The complaints across multiple jurisdictions cluster around the same set of allegations. If any of these sound familiar, your situation may be worth a professional review:

Savings projections that didn't hold up. Salespeople presented bill reduction estimates built on assumptions that either didn't apply to your home or didn't survive California's transition to NEM 3.0 — the Net Energy Metering rule that took effect April 2023 and dramatically reduced what utilities pay for exported solar energy. If your salesperson showed you projected savings using pre-NEM 3.0 math, that may constitute a material misrepresentation.

Verbal promises that aren't in writing. A common pattern: the salesperson says the system will eliminate your utility bill, the contract says something much more limited. Under California Civil Code Section 1689, a material misrepresentation made during the sales process — and relied upon by the homeowner when signing — can form the basis for rescission. Rescission treats the contract as void from the beginning. No buyout fee. No settlement negotiation. The agreement is cancelled.

Undisclosed dealer fees. Solar loans are often financed through third-party lenders, and the amount a solar company collects from the lender to facilitate that financing — the "dealer fee" — is frequently not disclosed to the homeowner. California's SB 784 would have required this disclosure, but it did not become law.  If your dealer fee was not disclosed, note it in your records and any complaint.

UCC-1 liens on title. Many Sunrun customers only discover that their solar agreement placed a Uniform Commercial Code lien on their home when they go to refinance or sell the property. If this was not clearly disclosed at the time of signing, it may constitute a material omission under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

What Is the CPUC's Role in All of This?

The California Public Utilities Commission regulates how solar energy companies interact with the state's three investor-owned utilities — Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric. CPUC regulations require specific written disclosures before any residential solar contract is signed, including total cost projections, escalator terms, end-of-contract options, and cancellation rights.

If your Sunrun contract failed to include those disclosures, or if you were not provided with the state-required Solar Energy System Disclosure Document at the time of signing, your right to cancel may extend beyond the standard window under California Civil Code Section 1689.6. CPUC proceedings involving Sunrun and NEM 3.0 misrepresentation remain an active part of the broader legal picture in California.

If Sunrun Is Under Investigation, Can I Cancel My Contract?

An investigation alone does not automatically cancel your contract. What it does — importantly — is validate the pattern. When the Texas AG, California's AG, the FTC, and courts in the Northern District of California are all looking at the same company for the same conduct — and when one of those investigations has already produced an actual lawsuit against a related company — it dramatically strengthens the factual foundation for individual cancellation claims based on:

• Misrepresentation of savings under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
• NEM 3.0 misrepresentation if your contract was signed between mid-2022 and late 2023
• TILA rescission if your loan application contains falsified or undisclosed terms (a pattern documented by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2024)
• Contractor license violations, if any work was performed by unlicensed subcontractors (verified at cslb.ca.gov)
• Failure to provide required disclosure documents, which under California law may mean your cancellation period never began

The homeowners who successfully exit these contracts are typically the ones who document their situation early — original sales materials, text messages, emails, verbal promise notes, utility bills before and after installation — and have a professional review whether the specific facts of their agreement support a legal cancellation path.

What Should California Sunrun Customers Do Right Now?

Whether or not you plan to pursue cancellation, these steps protect you regardless of how the investigations develop:

1. Locate your original contract and read the escalator clause, early termination fee, and any language referencing a UCC-1 or security interest in your home.
2. Pull your utility bills from the 12 months before installation and compare them to the projected savings your salesperson presented.
3. Verify your installer's license at cslb.ca.gov using the name of the company that performed the installation.
4. File a complaint with the California AG's office, the FTC at ftc.gov/complaint, and the CFPB at consumerfinance.gov/complaint if you believe you were misled. Your complaint contributes to the formal record regulators use to build enforcement cases.
5. Request a free contract review from California Solar Exit. Most reviews take 15 minutes. You'll have a clear picture of whether your facts support a legal exit before you make any decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Sunrun still operating in California?

Yes. Sunrun is still active and continues to service existing contracts in California. The investigations are ongoing and no court has ordered the company to suspend operations. If you have a Sunrun system, you should continue to receive monitoring and maintenance services — but document any failures in writing.

Has anything actually happened since these investigations were first announced?

Yes. As of September 2026, CAM Solar — one of the four companies originally named in the Texas AG's April 2026 investigation — has been sued directly, the first company from that initiative to face formal litigation. This shows the investigation is actively producing consequences, not sitting idle as an open inquiry.

Does the Texas investigation apply to my California Sunrun contract?

Not directly. California Sunrun customers are covered by California consumer protection law — the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, Civil Code Section 1689, and CPUC regulations. The Texas investigation is significant because it validates the sales practice patterns California regulators are independently investigating.

Does a class action lawsuit mean I'll automatically get money back?

No. Class certification in the Northern District of California means a group of affected homeowners can proceed together, but individual damages depend on the specific facts of each case and any settlement or verdict. You do not need to wait for a class action to pursue your own legal review.

Can I cancel a Sunrun PPA or lease if I was misled about NEM 3.0?

This is one of the strongest grounds for cancellation we see. If your contract was signed between 2022 and 2023 and your salesperson presented savings projections using NEM 2.0 export rates that no longer apply to your system, you may have a rescission claim under California Civil Code Section 1689. A free contract review will tell you whether the specific dates and disclosures in your agreement support that path.

What is a UCC-1 filing and does my Sunrun contract have one?

A UCC-1 is a Uniform Commercial Code lien that some solar companies place on personal property connected to the financed system. In some cases this affects title. You can check for UCC-1 filings associated with your address through your county recorder's office.

California Solar Exit is a consumer advocacy firm serving homeowners throughout California. We work with general counsel focused on solar contract cancellation under California consumer protection law. This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

You came here because something about your Sunrun deal didn't add up — and now you know you're not imagining it.

An investigation moving forward doesn't fix your contract on its own; it takes an actual review of your specific agreement to know where you stand.

Call (213) 579-5156 or visit californiasolarexit.com — we'll tell you in one call whether you have a case.