Independent profile — not affiliated with Vivint Smart Home
Vivint Smart Home
Vivint Smart Home is a home security and automation company founded in 1999 as APX Alarm Security Solutions, rebranded Vivint in 2011, taken public via a 2020 SPAC merger, and acquired outright by NRG Energy in March 2023 for roughly $2.8 billion. The company has paid a $20 million FTC settlement over misuse of consumers' credit reports, a $3.2 million DOJ settlement over false statements to a lender, and multiple state Attorney General settlements (Arizona, New Jersey, Wyoming, Texas, Pennsylvania) over deceptive door-to-door sales tactics. A federal appeals court also affirmed a $189.7 million jury verdict against Vivint for sales reps impersonating a rival security company's employees.
Complaints & Reviews on USAComplaints
USAComplaints currently maintains 10 historical complaints about Vivint Smart Home, published between 2007 and 2009. No approved complaints have been published on this site during the last three years. For a current reputation snapshot, see the independent sources below.
- APX Alarm REVIEW: Comitment to APX Alarm's executive team and employees are committed to customer satisfaction. APX Alarms approach to business is focused on providing the highest customer satisfaction in the security and home automation industry. Provo
- APX Alarm REVIEW: Commitment to customer satisfaction. APX protects customers throughout the united states and canada, Security and satisfaction are number one concern!
- APX Alarm REVIEW: Comitment to APX Alarm's executive team and employees are committed to customer satisfaction. APX Alarms approach to business is focused on providing the highest customer satisfaction in the security and home automation industry
- APX Alarm REVIEW: Commitment to customer satisfaction. APX protects customers throughout the united states and canada, Security and satisfaction are number one concern!
- To cancel the product
- LIES & runaround, misinfo, no last names, no employee id's, no upper managemnt on floo
- Salesman lied to me and deceived me about termination provisions of contract
- APX Alarm REVIEW: Comitment to APX Alarm's executive team and employees are committed to customer satisfaction. APX Alarms approach to business is focused on providing the highest customer satisfaction in the security and home automation industry
- APX Alarm REVIEW: Commitment to customer satisfaction. APX protects customers throughout the united states and canada, Security and satisfaction are number one concern!
- APX Alarm REVIEW: Commitment to customer satisfaction. APX protects customers throughout the united states and canada, Security and satisfaction are number one concern!
Complaint Themes
Independent Sources
Shown for context — not merged with USAComplaints' own numbers.
Contacts
Locations
| Type | Address |
|---|---|
| Headquarters | 3401 Ashton Blvd Lehi UT 84043 |
Corporate history and ownership
Founded in 1999 in Lehi, Utah by Todd Pedersen and Keith Nellesen as APX Alarm Security Solutions, the company rebranded as Vivint in February 2011. Blackstone acquired it privately in 2012, and it went public on the NYSE in January 2020 via a reverse merger with Mosaic Acquisition Corp., a Fortress Investment Group-sponsored SPAC. NRG Energy announced an all-cash acquisition in December 2022 and closed the roughly $2.8 billion deal (about $5.2 billion including assumed debt) on March 10, 2023; Vivint now operates as an NRG business segment rather than an independent public company.
Is Vivint Smart Home Legitimate?
Vivint is a large, real company under NRG Energy ownership, not a fly-by-night operation -- but its historical sales practices have drawn substantiated federal and state enforcement across more than a decade. The FTC's 2021 case found Vivint reps misused unrelated consumers' credit reports to secure financing; DOJ separately found reps made false statements to a lender about who funded initial payments. At least five states (Arizona, New Jersey, Wyoming, Texas, and Pennsylvania) have settled deceptive door-to-door sales claims against Vivint, and a federal jury -- upheld on appeal by the Fourth Circuit -- found Vivint representatives impersonated a competitor's staff to poach customers, awarding $189.7 million in damages. Common consumer complaints echo these findings: quoted prices that don't match the final bill, difficulty cancelling within the legal rescission period, and continued billing after cancellation attempts.
Court & Public Records
| Case | Authority | Dates | Type | Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTC v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. Docket 2:21-cv-00267-TS | U.S. District Court, District of Utah | Settled | Settled FTC alleged Vivint sales representatives obtained financing for credit-unqualified customers by pulling the credit reports of unrelated third parties with similar names or adding cosigners without consent, leaving innocent people referred to debt collectors when the accounts defaulted. Vivint agreed to pay $20 million ($15 million civil penalty, $5 million consumer redress) and establish a customer-service task force. On December 5, 2024 the FTC sent an initial round of redress -- 470 checks averaging $1,056, totaling about $500,000 -- to consumers with valid claims, noting additional funds would be distributed at a later date. | Source | |
| United States v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (FIRREA false-statements settlement) | U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Utah | — | Settled | Settled DOJ alleged that from 2017-2020, Vivint sales representatives personally fronted customers' initial financing payments while making false statements to the federally insured lending bank to make it appear customers had funded the payments themselves. Vivint agreed to pay $3.2 million to resolve the FIRREA allegations. | Source |
| Wyoming Attorney General v. Vivint (deceptive door-to-door sales settlement) | Wyoming Attorney General consumer-protection enforcement | — | Settled | Settled Wyoming's AG settled with Vivint Inc. and its installation arm (then called Smart Home Pros, Inc., formerly Arm Security, Inc.) for $100,000 to the state general fund, over allegations of misrepresented discounted pricing, failure to timely refund customers who cancelled within the 3-day right-of-rescission period, and unlawful door-to-door sales tactics. | Source |
| Arizona Attorney General v. Vivint | Arizona Attorney General consent judgment | — | Settled | Settled Arizona AG Mark Brnovich announced a $400,000 consent judgment ($75,000 restitution, $285,000 civil penalty, $40,000 costs/fees) over allegations that Vivint sales representatives made false representations to induce customers to sign contracts. | Source |
| New Jersey Attorney General v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. | New Jersey Attorney General / NJ Fire and Burglar Alarm Advisory Committee (Assurance of Voluntary Compliance) | — | Settled | Settled New Jersey's AG announced a $200,000 settlement resolving complaints (some dating to 2008, against Vivint/APX and its installer arm) over high-pressure sales, cancellation difficulty, billing/contract inaccuracies, equipment problems, and misleading representatives. Terms required sales-rep ID badges, 5-year recordkeeping of contract acknowledgments, free system removal for rescinded contracts, and permit/code compliance. | Source |
| Texas Attorney General v. Vivint | Texas Attorney General settlement | — | Settled | Settled Texas AG Ken Paxton announced a settlement alleging Vivint used door-to-door alarm sales representatives who were not registered with the Texas Department of Public Safety as required, beginning around January 2012, in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Settlement required DPS registration compliance and clearer cancellation-right notices. | Source |
| CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. Docket 24-1120 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (appeal from W.D.N.C.) | — | Appeal decided | Appeal decided — see outcome A competitor, CPI Security, sued Vivint alleging its door-to-door sales representatives deceived CPI's own customers by falsely claiming Vivint had acquired CPI or that the rep was with CPI, violating the Lanham Act and North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. A jury awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory and $140 million in punitive damages (about $189.7 million total); the Fourth Circuit affirmed the verdict on appeal. | Source |
| TCPA class action re: Vivint telemarketing calls Docket 0:12-cv-61826 | U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida | — | Settled | Settled Class action on behalf of consumers who received prerecorded or autodialed telemarketing calls from Vivint or its marketing partners starting in September 2008, alleging Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations. Final approval was granted for a $6 million settlement fund. | Source |
Company Relationships
- Subsidiary of: NRG Energy, Inc.