Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio is a lawsuit filed on 2021-10-19 in the Superior Court of California for Orange County by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. (SFC), a non-profit organisation, against the television maker Vizio, Inc.[6][9] SFC alleges that Vizio’s smart TVs contain software licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) and the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 (LGPLv2.1) and that Vizio has not made the corresponding source code available. Unlike earlier GPL cases brought by copyright holders, SFC sues as a purchaser of a Vizio TV, claiming rights as a third-party beneficiary of the licences and seeking delivery of source code rather than copyright remedies.[1] As of 2026-09-30 the case has not reached final judgment.
Background
The GPLv2 permits copying and distribution of a covered program in object code or executable form provided that the distributor either accompanies it with “the complete corresponding machine-readable source code” or with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the source code. The licence defines complete source code for an executable to include “the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable”.[1][6]
Vizio’s smart TVs use a platform called SmartCast. The state court’s 2025 minute order summarises SFC’s pleading as alleging that SmartCast relies on open-source software subject to the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1.[6]
The dispute
SFC’s allegations. As summarised by the federal court, SFC alleges that Vizio uses “at least twenty-five programs, including the Linux kernel software” covered by the GPL agreements in its smart TVs but does not make the corresponding source code available to purchasers, and it seeks to compel Vizio to do so as the remedy for breach of contract. SFC also seeks declaratory relief.[1][3] SFC further alleges that access to the source code would let outside developers and users improve the product, for example to reduce data collection or preserve features Vizio treats as obsolete.[6]
Vizio’s position. Vizio removed the case to federal court, arguing that SFC’s contract claims were completely preempted by the Copyright Act.[1] Back in state court it argued that the contract claim was preempted, that SFC is not an intended third-party beneficiary of the licences, and that the declaratory relief claim failed with the contract claim.[3] Vizio also argued that the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 do not require it to provide information needed to reinstall modified software on the TVs so that they continue to function properly.[6] These are the parties’ positions; the court has not resolved all of them.
Decision or outcome
Remand to state court, 2022
On 2022-05-13 the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted SFC’s motion to remand. It held that SFC’s claims were not completely preempted because the source-code disclosure obligation is an “extra element” beyond the rights protected by the Copyright Act, and because SFC seeks “only to compel Vizio to provide it with the source code—a remedy not available under the Copyright Act.” It also observed that SFC is not the copyright holder and so could not bring a copyright claim, and that the disclosure obligation “is best characterized as a covenant actionable only under breach of contract.”[1][2]
Vizio’s motion for summary judgment, 2023
On 2023-12-29 the Superior Court (Judge Sandy N. Leal) denied Vizio’s motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. It held the breach-of-contract claim not preempted. On standing, it found “a triable issue of material fact” as to whether SFC is a third-party beneficiary, noting that there is no exclusionary language in the GPLs, that the language of the licences “is not so certain so as to preclude other interpretations”, and that SFC had presented evidence, including licence language, suggesting that third parties were intended to benefit through the right to receive source code. It also refused to dispose of the declaratory relief claim.[3]
SFC’s first motion for summary adjudication, 2024
On 2024-03-26 the court denied SFC’s request for a ruling that Vizio owes it a duty under the GPLs to produce source code, because facts on offer, acceptance and SFC’s beneficiary status were not established, and granted SFC’s request for a ruling that Vizio’s affirmative defence of copyright preemption has no merit.[4]
Second round of motions, 2025
On 2025-12-04 the court issued a tentative ruling, which is non-binding, contemplating granting SFC’s second motion for summary adjudication on its first issue: whether Vizio has a contractual duty to provide SFC with the complete corresponding source code for GPLv2- and LGPLv2.1-licensed software on the model of TV SFC bought. SFC based that issue on an offer of source code in the TV’s “License List” menu that it says its representative accepted by requesting the code; Vizio disputed this.[5] The plaintiff stated on 2025-12-24 that no final ruling on that motion had yet issued.[5]
On 2025-12-23 the court granted Vizio’s motion for summary adjudication on a separate issue of duty. It held that the language of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 is unambiguous and requires Vizio to make source code available so that it “can be readily obtained and modified” by SFC or others, but that “nothing in the language of the Agreements requires Vizio to allow modified source code to be reinstalled on its devices while ensuring the devices remain operable after the source code is modified.”[6] SFC published a statement with the order saying it has never argued that the GPL requires a device to continue to function properly after modification.[6]
Trial scheduling
According to SFC, a trial set to begin on 2026-01-12 was taken off the court’s calendar in January 2026 because an older case needed the court’s time.[8] SFC’s case page, last updated 2026-02-27, lists the case as ongoing with a trial date in late 2026.[7] This article does not report any judgment after trial, because none was found in the court records consulted.
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
Who can enforce copyleft. The case tests whether a purchaser of a device, rather than a copyright holder, can enforce the GPL’s source-code obligations in contract. The federal court held that such a contract claim is not a disguised copyright claim, and the state court has held that whether SFC is an intended beneficiary is a factual question for trial.[1][3] No court has yet decided that question on the merits in this case.
Contract as well as copyright. Earlier cases such as Jacobsen v. Katzer treated open-source licence terms as copyright conditions. The Vizio remand order characterised the GPL’s disclosure obligation as a covenant enforceable in contract and distinguished Jacobsen because that plaintiff was the copyright holder seeking copyright-equivalent remedies.[1]
Scope of “installation” scripts. The December 2025 order is, so far, a trial-court ruling on what the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 require. It reads the definition of complete source code, including the scripts used to control installation, as not requiring a distributor to let modified software be reinstalled on the same device while keeping it operable.[6]
Practice. For organisations that ship devices or software containing GPL or LGPL components, the litigation shows the obligations that are in dispute in court: accompanying object code with complete corresponding source, or a valid written offer, and responding to source requests. Written offers presented in a product’s own menus were put forward in this case as the basis for a direct contract with a purchaser.[5]
Lessons learned
- Meet the source-code obligation. The obligations in dispute are accompanying object code with complete corresponding source, or a valid written offer, and responding to source requests.[5] Organisations shipping devices with GPL or LGPL components should be able to show how they meet them.
- Offers in product menus. SFC based its contract claim on an offer of source code in the TV’s “License List” menu that it says it accepted by requesting the code.[5] Such notices may be relied on as the basis of a direct contract with a purchaser.
- Enforcement beyond copyright holders. The federal court treated the disclosure obligation as a covenant enforceable in contract, and the state court held that whether SFC is an intended beneficiary is a factual question for trial.[1][3] Compliance planning should not assume that only copyright holders can bring claims.