Luckau v. Sunrun, Inc

Background

Defendants Sunrun Inc. and Clean Energy Experts, LLC (CEE) moved to dismiss Jeremy Luckau’s complaint. Luckau alleges that he registered his phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry and that CEE made unsolicited calls to that number. Two voicemails identified the caller as “Solar America” and included a telephone number.

Luckau’s second claim alleges that the voicemails violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(4), a regulation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. That provision requires telemarketing procedures to identify the person or entity on whose behalf a call is made. Luckau alleges that the caller should have identified CEE rather than “Solar America.” The defendants did not challenge Luckau’s first claim in this motion. Luckau did not assert a claim under the separate regulation barring calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Standing analysis

Article III standing requires an injury in fact and a causal connection between that injury and the challenged conduct. The court concluded that receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls was enough, at the pleading stage, to allege a concrete injury. It also explained that whether Luckau’s wife consented to the calls concerns the merits of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim, not standing.

The court focused instead on traceability—whether Luckau’s alleged injury was fairly connected to the specific violation of Section 64.1200(d)(4). Luckau did not allege that he asked to be placed on the defendants’ internal do-not-call list. The court therefore reasoned that even if the defendants had maintained an internal list satisfying all regulatory requirements, Luckau would not have been on it, and he might have received the same calls. The court stated that the alleged harm might be traceable to the separate rule against calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, but not to the identification requirement.

The court acknowledged decisions reaching the opposite conclusion. It nevertheless found those decisions unpersuasive on these facts because the voicemails included a company name and phone number, and Luckau did not allege that he tried to use the number to stop further calls but could not do so. The court stated that it was inclined to find that Luckau lacked standing to pursue his second claim.

Order

The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss in this order. Because the parties had not addressed traceability in the manner discussed by the court or analyzed some of the cited authorities, the court ordered supplemental briefing. Luckau must file a supplemental opposition brief by July 14, 2025, including any allegations he would add if the court dismissed the second claim for lack of standing with leave to amend. Defendants must file a supplemental reply by July 28, 2025. The court vacated the July 10, 2025 motion hearing and stated that the matter would then be considered without oral argument unless otherwise ordered.