Sunrun Lawsuit: Connecticut Trial Set Nov. 10, 2026, No Sunrun Deal

As of October 20, 2026, Connecticut’s Sunrun lawsuit is headed for a jury. The Hartford court docket, which we read on October 20 (the page was marked “Information Updated as of 10/20/2026”), lists jury selection and trial scheduled to begin November 10, 2026 at 10:00 AM. Further trial days are listed for November 12, 13, 17–20 and 24, and December 1–4 and 8–11, with November 11 off — 16 scheduled court days by our count. A scheduled date is not a guarantee; trials move. On October 13, 2026 the court denied motion #161, a request to continue the trial management conference.

Then, on October 20, 2026, the State filed motion #162, titled “Motion for Judgment in Accordance with Stipulation – As to Elevate Solar Solutions LLC, Dakota Grumet, and Sierra Howes.” In plain terms, the Attorney General and those three defendants have agreed on how the case should end against them, and they are asking Judge Elizabeth Stewart to enter that agreement as a judgment. It does not cover Sunrun, Inc., Sunrun Installation Services, Inc. or Bright Planet Solar, Inc. The docket does not show the terms — no dollar figure, no list of consumers, no restitution plan — and as of October 20 the court had not ruled on it. A remote status conference was also held on October 20 at 12:00 PM; its outcome had not been entered on the docket. As of October 20, 2026, the docket shows no settlement with Sunrun and no final disposition.

For background on the other Sunrun cases — the closed robocall class action, the Vivint Solar cases and Arizona — see our main Sunrun lawsuit page.

Attorney General William Tong announced the suit on July 19, 2024; the complaint itself is dated July 1, 2024. It names six defendants: SunRun Inc., SunRun Installation Services, Bright Planet Solar, Inc., Elevate Solar Solutions LLC and two salespeople. According to the Attorney General, “SunRun contracts with local marketing and installation companies, including Bright Planet and Elevate Solar, to provide door-to-door marketing, sales, and installation services.” The release says one of the salespeople is a principal of Elevate Solar and also employed by Bright Planet.

The State’s complaint describes three Connecticut homeowners. These are allegations; no court has ruled on them. In Windsor, a homeowner turned down a 25-year Sunrun lease at $306.98 a month; the State alleges a signature was applied anyway, a Bright Planet employee impersonated the homeowner on the confirmation call, and Sunrun installed a 36-panel system. In Stafford Springs, the State says a 25-year lease at $314 a month carried a 2.9 percent annual increase that was never explained, worth $135,693 in “non-disclosed excess charges”, and the panels were installed without permits and never activated. In Wethersfield, a homeowner signed a 25-year lease at $106.18 a month but never received a physical copy, and the panels, again installed without permits, were not activated.

What are the common complaints about Sunrun? In this case, the complaints the State relies on are forged or unauthorized signatures, impersonated confirmation calls, payment escalators that were not disclosed, missing contract copies, unpermitted installation and systems that never switched on. The case “stems from complaints referred by the Department of Consumer Protection,” whose commissioner said the agency had “received many complaints related to SunRun and other solar company actions.” Sunrun has not been found liable for any of it.

Not from a claim form. This is a government enforcement action brought by the State, not a class action, so there is nothing to join or sign up for. How much should I expect from a class action settlement? For this case, there is no class settlement to expect anything from: as of October 20, 2026, no fund, no administrator and no per-person amount exists, and no court has put a value on the State’s claims.

What the State asks for is in its complaint: an order stopping the conduct, “restitution,” disgorgement of “all revenues, profits and gains” from the alleged practices, attorneys’ fees, and civil penalties of “not more than $5,000 per violation” for willful violations. The complaint has 16 counts: four each against the Sunrun companies, Bright Planet, Elevate Solar and the two salespeople. Civil penalties go to the State, not to homeowners. If the case ends with restitution from any defendant, how it would be paid would depend on the judgment or agreement; the complaint does not describe a claims process.

The Elevate stipulation is the first sign of how part of the case may end, but nobody outside the case knows what it says. We will not guess at a dollar figure. The Attorney General’s own record shows why the headline number of a stipulated judgment can mislead: in 2024, a Hartford Superior Court judge entered a $5 million stipulated judgment against another seller, Vision Solar, but according to a March 17, 2026 release, “because Vision Solar has filed for bankruptcy, the company will not have sufficient assets to pay the judgment.”

If it promises a payment from a Sunrun class action settlement, treat it as fake. As of October 20, 2026, there is no Sunrun class settlement, no claim form and no fund for the Connecticut case, so no legitimate message can ask you to “claim your share” of it. A message asking for your Sunrun account number, Social Security number, bank details or a processing fee is collecting data or money, not filing a claim.

Watch for companies that point to the Connecticut trial as proof your lease is void and offer to cancel it for an upfront fee. The case is about specific alleged conduct by specific sellers and has not been decided. The State’s own allegations involve impersonated confirmation calls: never confirm a solar contract on a call you did not start, and check any message against the number on your bill.

If the case goes to a jury, the result would apply to Connecticut’s claims, not to Sunrun customers elsewhere. What to watch, in order: whether Judge Stewart enters the Elevate stipulated judgment (motion #162), what the October 20 status conference produced, and whether jury selection actually begins as scheduled on November 10, 2026 — or whether Sunrun and Bright Planet settle before it does. We will update our Sunrun lawsuit page when the docket changes.

Why did Costco drop Sunrun? That is a separate business matter, not part of any lawsuit. When Sunrun disclosed the end of its Costco sales partnership on September 19, 2024, it said its subscription model “provides less upfront revenue recognition under GAAP for Costco” and that the two companies “were not able to reach mutually agreeable terms,” with an exit from Costco warehouses no later than December 31, 2024; Costco accounted for less than 10% of Sunrun’s volumes in the first half of 2024. If you bought a Sunrun system through Costco, any contract dispute goes to Sunrun and, in Connecticut or Arizona, to the state Attorney General’s office — the Costco exit gives you no claim of its own.