A court-approved Sunrun settlement gives Connecticut customers a process for challenging unauthorized solar contracts, with specific cancellation windows and deadlines for the company to investigate complaints.
Hartford Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Stewart approved the agreement Oct. 26. The signed terms require Sunrun Inc. and Sunrun Installation Services Inc. to pay $300,000 to the state, separately from relief for customers.
The state sued July 15, 2024, alleging that Sunrun and its sales partners locked consumers into contracts without consent by impersonating them. Attorney General William Tong said the lawsuit followed complaints of forged signatures. Sunrun expressly denies liability in the signed agreement. The settlement was entered without findings of wrongdoing.
How the complaint process works
The agreement's fraud-report policy covers complaints about the authenticity of a Connecticut customer's Sunrun solar contract, including claims that the customer did not authorize an electronic signature. Sunrun must maintain the policy through Dec. 31, 2031.
Sunrun must promptly acknowledge a complaint and assign a case number. Within 10 days, it must identify a person or team the customer can contact directly.
Within 60 days of receiving notice of a complaint, Sunrun must provide a written determination or, if the case is unresolved, a written status update explaining what remains and estimating completion. Further written updates are required until a determination is issued. The agreement requires resolution within 120 days.
The company can propose changes to the policy, including its timelines, but must notify the attorney general at least 30 days before implementing them. The attorney general can object to changes that would materially impair the reliability or timeliness of investigations.
For a substantiated complaint, the agreement requires Sunrun to offer one or more applicable remedies. These include keeping the contract with a payment or billing adjustment, or cancellation and, at the customer's election, system removal. Removal includes specified roof sealing and repair of damage caused by installation or removal. For substantiated complaints received within 60 days of installation, Sunrun must also reimburse all amounts the customer paid to Sunrun in connection with the contract.
If the customer and company cannot agree on the resolution, an arbitrator approved by the attorney general makes a final decision. Sunrun pays the arbitrator's cost.
A separate cancellation right
Customers who say they did not receive their contract when they signed have another route. Sunrun may rebut that claim with proof that it delivered or made the contract available, including by email, text, customer portal or app.
If Sunrun cannot provide that proof, the agreement allows cancellation within three days after the company supplies a copy, or 30 days after the agreement's effective date, whichever is later. The agreement defines its effective date as the entry of judgment. The court docket records that entry Oct. 26; 30 days later is Nov. 25, 2026. The three-day period can extend the cancellation window beyond that date.
The agreement also requires notice letters by Nov. 25 to customers Sunrun knows may have been affected, including customers sold systems through Elevate Solar Solutions or C&D Marketing Services, doing business as A&D Solar. Letters go to the customer's most recent residential address in Sunrun's records. The notice requirement excludes people who have already released related claims.
The attorney general's Oct. 23 announcement directs consumer claims to CTSupport@sunrun.com. Customers can contact that address without waiting for a notice letter. The fraud-report policy has no general contract-signing cutoff in the agreement.
The settlement does not give customers an independent right to sue to enforce its terms. Only the parties to the settlement and the court can enforce it. Complaints can go to the attorney general through the state's complaint form or 860-808-5318.
The court separately entered judgment Oct. 21 under a settlement with Elevate, Dakota Grumet and Sierra Howes. The case against Bright Planet Solar remains pending, according to the attorney general.