Class Action Lawsuit - Home Integration System

[chl]

FYI, at this point SigEnergy does not guarantee V2X function will work or continue to work with any existing EV's (). It's because they are leveraging a "bug" in the DC fast charging control implementation in some EV's to enable V2X. It appears some EV makers have now fixed the "bug" via OTA updates and SigEnergy V2X has stopped working () on previously working EV's. So, buyers beware you might end up with an expensive paperweight.

Alas, typical corporate not-invented-here mentality...that's what got AT&T broken into the baby Bells.

Forget about giving the customer what they want.

I guess there's always forscan or just turning off the OTAs (after the warranty period is up).

EDIT: comments say:

My 2023 polestar 2 worked (oct 23, 2025).It also did NOT show a change in the SOC until I started driving. The lightning still works as far as I know. Chevy/GM is the only one actively blocking it so you use their home energy system

Sponsored

 

[chl]

Blocking/disabling it might run afoul of existing laws-they could always just cancel the warranty instead of interfering with the owner's use of the vehicle.

Did we license the Lightning or did we buy it?

Did we promise not to use it for V2H somewhere in our purchase agreement?

These questions and more need to be answered.

Hopefully Ford will not go down this path the way GM and Rivian have.

 

[chriserx]

Blocking/disabling it might run afoul of existing laws-they could always just cancel the warranty instead of interfering with the owner's use of the vehicle.

Did we license the Lightning or did we buy it?

Did we promise not to use it for V2H somewhere in our purchase agreement?

These questions and more need to be answered.

Hopefully Ford will not go down this path the way GM and Rivian have.

I'm honestly refreshed at how forthcoming Ford was regarding V2H, as long as you didn't use the vehicle as a stationary power source and updated the software in a 'timely' manner (which in theory could block V2H) they would still honor the warranty on the vehicle. But this leaves open the conundrum, was it because they knew their own implementation didn't work and thought it was unlikely for us to find our own?

 

[chl]

I'm honestly refreshed at how forthcoming Ford was regarding V2H, as long as you didn't use the vehicle as a stationary power source and updated the software in a 'timely' manner (which in theory could block V2H) they would still honor the warranty on the vehicle. But this leaves open the conundrum, was it because they knew their own implementation didn't work and thought it was unlikely for us to find our own?

Yes, I thought that language was a bit odd in the warranty since they market and authorize a HIS system, but it says "permanent stationary power source" so what constitutes "permanent?"

I was thinking it means you take the battery out and use it in a home back-up battery system maybe?

As an attorney, I'd argue that idea, or say it should be stricken from the warranty and not enforced as ambiguous, vague and indefinite.

So maybe they won't disable it - that video was rumors and "I've heard" type info so until there is some official pronouncement from Ford, grain of salt.

I'm happy using the PPOB from the bed for my emergency circuits through a 6853 GENRAC transfer switch - with the grounds connected! - 240V x 30A power is plenty.

 

[chl]

I know for SR battery equipped trucks they want a $500 one time fee for the software to run their HIS system through the FCSP app.

But if not using their proprietary software, how could they charge me a fee if I got a different V2H system?

It'd be an unfair trade practice in theory to disable the V2H function or cancel the warranty if I use a different system...like using equivalent aftermarket parts will not void a warranty per Federal law.

 

[tearitupsports]

FYI, at this point SigEnergy does not guarantee V2X function will work or continue to work with any existing EV's (). It's because they are leveraging a "bug" in the DC fast charging control implementation in some EV's to enable V2X. It appears some EV makers have now fixed the "bug" via OTA updates and SigEnergy V2X has stopped working () on previously working EV's. So, buyers beware you might end up with an expensive paperweight.

With Ford discontinuing the lightning, as well as their amazing ability to deliver OTA's, I don't think we have much to worry about.

I think Tesla is really going to be the one that disables it on people who previously had it working. It looks like Rivian is going to actually work to make it happen.
GM is the big bummer as they clearly have disabled this to anyone except their own home backup system (which is the exact same as Ford's just in different outer packaging).

 

[tls]

Blocking/disabling it might run afoul of existing laws-they could always just cancel the warranty instead of interfering with the owner's use of the vehicle.

It really is a bug that it works. What they're doing is starting a DC charging session then, at the "charger" end, violating the CCS spec by dropping the voltage instead of raising it, so current flows from the vehicle instead of to the vehicle. There is a standard for bidirectional DC operation over CCS that's been in the works for years but I'm not sure it's even finalized yet and there definitely are not certified implementations out there. This is something very different.

Remember we're talking about hundreds of volts at hundreds of amps here - it's hard to blame the vehicle manufacturers for being profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of closing those DC contactors when connected to a device that intentionally violates the control protocol specification.

Do I think it's safe? Yeah, probably. Probably might work for me, but I can see why it might not work for GM.

 

[chriserx]

It really is a bug that it works. What they're doing is starting a DC charging session then, at the "charger" end, violating the CCS spec by dropping the voltage instead of raising it, so current flows from the vehicle instead of to the vehicle. There is a standard for bidirectional DC operation over CCS that's been in the works for years but I'm not sure it's even finalized yet and there definitely are not certified implementations out there. This is something very different.

Remember we're talking about hundreds of volts at hundreds of amps here - it's hard to blame the vehicle manufacturers for being profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of closing those DC contactors when connected to a device that intentionally violates the control protocol specification.

Do I think it's safe? Yeah, probably. Probably might work for me, but I can see why it might not work for GM.

Do you have a source, preferably not a video, I'd love to know more about the technicals of this.

 

[Steely]

I know for SR battery equipped trucks they want a $500 one time fee for the software to run their HIS system through the FCSP app.

But if not using their proprietary software, how could they charge me a fee if I got a different V2H system?

It'd be an unfair trade practice in theory to disable the V2H function or cancel the warranty if I use a different system...like using equivalent aftermarket parts will not void a warranty per Federal law.

Wait so you're a lawyer...? Do you have any connections to consumer protection lawyers that would have interest in this?

I'm testing my system again as I write this. I rebooted the whole system Thurs in anticipation of a storm yesterday that wasn't bad enough to cause loss of power but even so I had to power cycle the charge station again before I could get power backup to transfer today.

I agree the issue is with the fcsp, in the wireless portion, it needs to be rebooted to clear whatever crashes in that side of the equipment. Reboot the FCSP just now and it auto transferred first try (post reboot). I'm on my 3rd FCSP btw.

So my new issue and reason for continuing tests is that when I get it running and let it run for a few hours, after a while I've had the system just shut off for no reason. So even if you get it working, it's not going to be much good is it if it just cuts out after 6 hours of a multi day power outage.....

I'm screen recording the mprof app to see if that gives any clue as to why power drops. So it probably won't do it this test

 

[tls]

Do you have a source, preferably not a video, I'd love to know more about the technicals of this.

I don't have a written source I can refer you to. I did have a long discussion with someone (an electrical engineer I work with and trust) who had personally looked at the voltages and signaling during a session on one of these and described it basically as I did above. I don't think there are exactly a huge number of them in the field and I'm not aware of how much Sigenergy has disclosed about how their equipment works so I don't want to give more specifics about when/where/how and get them mad at one of their customers or anything.

That said, when I heard about their product this is pretty much exactly what I expected they'd do. It makes sense, it's just surprising to me that vehicle firmware doesn't already chop it off at the knees due to sanity checks I would have coded up myself if I'd been writing a vehicle-side CCS implementation. The charger voltage should not drop lower than the battery voltage; if it does, shutting the session down seems like a smart thing to do just as it would for any apparent protocol violation when there are hundreds of kilowatts of energy involved.

If what my colleague described to me is wrong, I'd love to know. On the other hand, if it can be confirmed by other sources, I'd love to know that too.

 

[chl]

It really is a bug that it works. What they're doing is starting a DC charging session then, at the "charger" end, violating the CCS spec by dropping the voltage instead of raising it, so current flows from the vehicle instead of to the vehicle. There is a standard for bidirectional DC operation over CCS that's been in the works for years but I'm not sure it's even finalized yet and there definitely are not certified implementations out there. This is something very different.

Remember we're talking about hundreds of volts at hundreds of amps here - it's hard to blame the vehicle manufacturers for being profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of closing those DC contactors when connected to a device that intentionally violates the control protocol specification.

Do I think it's safe? Yeah, probably. Probably might work for me, but I can see why it might not work for GM.

Well sort of...but not really.

The inverter will change the 400VDC to 240VAC and draw it at 40A for 9.6kW- that's about what the Ford authorized HIS through the FCSP with the DELTA inverter is (well max 10kW according to the specs):

This is not a 30 minute DC charging session with high voltage (400-800) and high current (up to 500A).

My utility service panel is rated for up to 200A at 240V, but I use a whole lot less.

It's less power than the 240V 80A FCSP max power (19.2kW).

That should put it into perspective, eh?

 

[tls]

Well sort of...but not really.

The inverter will change the 400VDC to 240VAC and draw it at 40A for 9.6kW- that's about what the Ford authorized HIS through the FCSP with the DELTA inverter is (well max 10kW according to the specs):

Sure, but look at it from the point of view of the vehicle firmware (more rightly the programmer maintaining it) - there's no way to know this is all the connected "charger" is going to do, once it violates the protocol spec and lowers rather than raises the voltage. It's risky to keep those contactors closed once you see this kind of behavior. Not specifically because of what the Sigenergy device does, but because, among other things, how do you know you are in fact connected to a device that violates the spec but is otherwise so safe and well-behaved?

 

[chriserx]

Sure, but look at it from the point of view of the vehicle firmware (more rightly the programmer maintaining it) - there's no way to know this is all the connected "charger" is going to do, once it violates the protocol spec and lowers rather than raises the voltage. It's risky to keep those contactors closed once you see this kind of behavior. Not specifically because of what the Sigenergy device does, but because, among other things, how do you know you are in fact connected to a device that violates the spec but is otherwise so safe and well-behaved?

I assumed he was referencing the GM charger since the plug type was CHAdeMO, I don't know what they actually use, I just know it's not what's in the lightning.

 

[chl]

Wait so you're a lawyer...? Do you have any connections to consumer protection lawyers that would have interest in this?

I'm testing my system again as I write this. I rebooted the whole system Thurs in anticipation of a storm yesterday that wasn't bad enough to cause loss of power but even so I had to power cycle the charge station again before I could get power backup to transfer today.

I agree the issue is with the fcsp, in the wireless portion, it needs to be rebooted to clear whatever crashes in that side of the equipment. Reboot the FCSP just now and it auto transferred first try (post reboot). I'm on my 3rd FCSP btw.

So my new issue and reason for continuing tests is that when I get it running and let it run for a few hours, after a while I've had the system just shut off for no reason. So even if you get it working, it's not going to be much good is it if it just cuts out after 6 hours of a multi day power outage.....

I'm screen recording the mprof app to see if that gives any clue as to why power drops. So it probably won't do it this test

Sorry you have so much trouble with this clearly defective system.

I have been a patent lawyer so not proficient in consumer protection laws, and they vary from state to state, I am licensed in Virginia only.

So I am not giving legal advice about it, just thinking out loud.

I got a taste of what consumer laws are in law school, basically the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) that has been enacted in most if not all states, but with state differences either enhancements or limitations.

There is one particular UCC section that comes to mind, the implied Warranty of Merchantability, however, your written warranty for the HIS would supersede that:

UCC 2-314:
(1) Unless excluded or modified a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to good of that kind...
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as:...
(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used....
(f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

So if it don't work the way promised or at all, you have a cause of action to sue, in essence.
You can sue for your money back, to have them remediate the issue (fix it), and for damages you incurred as a result of the unfitness of the thing purchased.

Now companies have lawyers that put in contract/warranty language to 'weasel' out of things as much as possible, but that's where state or federal law might supersede the weaseling.

But you should consult with an atty licensed in your state with expertise in that area.

If I were the victim, I'd do my best to negotiate with what I know, but if I had to go to court, I'd hire an attorney.

Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

However, the above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation. You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

So the above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

The above information is for general knowledge, not personalized legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship or privilege.

Just to be clear, here is my disclaimer which language the Virginia Bar prefers be used with on-line posts.
--------------
Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

However, the above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation. You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

So the above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

 

[Pitbull2o08]

Sorry you have so much trouble with this clearly defective system.

I have been a patent lawyer so not proficient in consumer protection laws, and they vary from state to state, I am licensed in Virginia only.

So I am not giving legal advice about it, just thinking out loud.

I got a taste of what consumer laws are in law school, basically the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) that has been enacted in most if not all states, but with state differences either enhancements or limitations.

There is one particular UCC section that comes to mind, the implied Warranty of Merchantability, however, your written warranty for the HIS would supersede that:

UCC 2-314:
(1) Unless excluded or modified a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to good of that kind...
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as:...
(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used....
(f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

So if it don't work the way promised or at all, you have a cause of action to sue, in essence.
You can sue for your money back, to have them remediate the issue (fix it), and for damages you incurred as a result of the unfitness of the thing purchased.

Now companies have lawyers that put in contract/warranty language to 'weasel' out of things as much as possible, but that's where state or federal law might supersede the weaseling.

But you should consult with an atty licensed in your state with expertise in that area.

If I were the victim, I'd do my best to negotiate with what I know, but if I had to go to court, I'd hire an attorney.

Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

However, the above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation. You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

So the above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

The above information is for general knowledge, not personalized legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship or privilege.

Just to be clear, here is my disclaimer which language the Virginia Bar prefers be used with on-line posts.
--------------
Disclaimer

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Virginia.

However, the above should not be considered legal advice for your particular situation. You should therefore not rely on the above and instead consult competent legal representation in your state if you have a potential case or controversy needing resolution.

This is not a solicitation for legal representation.

The law can and does change over time as news laws are passed, new cases decided, etc.

So the above may include information about past results not guaranteeing future outcomes.

This. Thankfully California is pro consumer and our attorney has been through this with ford before.

Sponsored