Between January and September 2026, six state attorneys general filed lawsuits against residential solar companies for deceptive sales. That is a faster pace than any prior year, and the suits share a pattern: a door-to-door or in-home pitch promising a zero or near-zero electric bill, a 20- to 30-year loan whose dealer fee (often 27 to 35 percent of the amount financed) was folded into the system price and never disclosed, a federal tax credit the customer did not qualify for, and a system that was never finished, never permitted, or never produced what was promised. In three of the six cases the state also sued the companies that financed the loans.
The six 2026 cases, in filing order
Every entry below is drawn from the attorney general's own press release or complaint, except Kansas, where the release was not on the AG's site at the time of writing and local news reports are cited instead. All allegations are unproven; these are lawsuits, not judgments.
| Filed | State | Defendants | Court | Scale alleged | Company status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-12 | Ohio | G3 Solar (Utah-based) | Franklin County Court of Common Pleas | "Many" consumers; Consumer Sales Practices Act and Home Solicitation Sales Act | Ceased operations; in bankruptcy (Kansas) |
| 2026-01-15 | Virginia | Founders of Power Home Solar (Pink Energy) and the lenders that financed its loans | U.S. District Court, E.D. Va. (Richmond) | 4,000+ households; $200M+ in loans; ~500 complaints | Chapter 7 since October 2022 |
| 2026-03-17 | New York | Attyx (formerly SUNco, marketed as LGCY Power), its two CEOs, Solar Mosaic, WebBank | New York state court (complaint linked from the release) | Thousands of New Yorkers; ~$275M generated | Ordered by the NY PSC to stop marketing in 2025; alleged to have continued under another name |
| 2026-05-21 | Texas | CAM Solar Inc. (San Antonio) | Texas state court (complaint linked from the release) | 100+ complaints to the AG; Deceptive Trade Practices Act | Operating at filing |
| 2026-07-15 | Michigan | Climax Solar, owner Joshua Thompson, and the financial institutions that funded its loans | U.S. District Court, W.D. Mich. | ~1,700 consumers; $81M financed; $22M in hidden financing costs (avg 27%) | Bankrupt and ceased operations in 2024 |
| 2026-09-29 | Kansas | G3 Solar LLC, three owner-managers, and a former sales executive | Shawnee County District Court | 304 documented transactions; six counts under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act; finance charges up to 35% | Ceased operations; in bankruptcy (Kansas) |
Two related actions sit outside the table. In April 2026 the Texas attorney general issued a civil investigative demand to Freedom Forever, Sunrun and two other installers over alleged deceptive sales practices; Freedom Forever filed Chapter 11 nine days later and converted to Chapter 7 in August. And New York's Public Service Commission ordered Attyx to stop marketing solar in 2025, a year before the AG's suit; the suit alleges the company kept selling under the LGCY Power name anyway.
What the complaints have in common
Read the six complaints side by side and the same five allegations appear in nearly every one.
- The savings claim. Kansas alleges a sales script that told homeowners they would "never pay a power bill." Ohio says systems produced far less than promised, so customers paid a solar loan and their utility bill. Virginia alleges the defendants knew the systems were money-losing and said the opposite. Texas found "nonexistent or significantly reduced" savings.
- The hidden dealer fee. Michigan quantifies it: $22 million in financing costs folded into the system price, averaging more than 27 percent of the amount financed. Kansas puts it at up to 35 percent. New York alleges Mosaic and WebBank concealed fees inside the system price and understated the loan's cost and interest rate. This fee is why a "$0 down, $150 a month" solar loan can carry a principal 30 percent above the cash price of the same system.
- The tax credit that did not apply. Ohio and Texas both allege customers were told they would receive the 30 percent federal credit when they had little or no tax liability to apply it against. Retirees on Social Security were the typical victim. The credit for homeowners expired for systems placed in service after December 31, 2025, so this specific misrepresentation is now historical, but the loans built around it are not.
- Sign first, build never. Michigan calls it "pitch, sign, fund, fail, and collect": the lender released funds to the installer before the system was finished, connected or approved by the utility, then kept collecting after the installer went under. New York alleges customers signed contracts they believed were credit-check forms.
- Vulnerable targets. Kansas alleges English-only contracts presented to non-English speakers. New York alleges sales to people who had disclosed they were retired, low-income or on fixed incomes. Ohio cites elderly customers without earned income.
Why the lenders are being sued, and why that matters more than the installer
An installer that has ceased operations cannot pay restitution. Four of the six defendants are already out of business or in bankruptcy, and a judgment against an empty shell is worth nothing to a homeowner. The lenders are different: they are solvent, they are still collecting, and they hold the lien on your equipment. That is why Virginia, New York and Michigan sued them directly, and why the relief those states are asking for is the part worth watching.
Michigan's release lists the remedies it wants from the financial institutions: cancellation or revision of certain loans, refunds or account credits, correction of credit reporting, and release of liens and UCC filings. New York asks the court to void agreements. Virginia pleads the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act alongside its state statute, which lets a state AG reach a national lender. If any of these cases settles the way the Pink Energy lender actions did in 2022 and 2023, the result is loan modification or forgiveness for a defined class of customers, not a check from the installer.
The legal hook behind all of this is the FTC Holder Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 433), which puts a notice in every consumer credit contract arranged by a seller making the lender subject to the same claims and defenses the buyer could raise against the seller. The Pink Energy guide explains how a homeowner uses the Holder Rule directly, with or without an AG suit.
If you bought from one of these companies
An AG lawsuit does not automatically do anything for you. It is a case between the state and the company. Three things do change for you once it is filed.
- File a complaint with your state AG now, even if you already did. Restitution in these cases is usually distributed to consumers the office has on record. The Michigan figure of about 1,700 consumers, the Kansas figure of 304 transactions and the Virginia figure of roughly 500 complaints are the lists the eventual remedy will be built from. If you are not on the list, you may not be in the remedy. Every AG office has an online consumer complaint form; attach your contract, your loan agreement and your production history.
- Keep paying the loan, and say so in writing. Stopping payment adds a default and a credit hit to your problems, and the lender's lien on the equipment does not go away because the installer did. If you believe you were deceived, send the lender a written dispute citing the Holder Rule notice in your own contract, then keep paying while it is pending. Michigan's suit specifically alleges lenders kept collecting and reporting after complaints; a written dispute is what makes that conduct actionable in your case.
- Separate the warranty problem from the fraud problem. Your panel, inverter and battery warranties come from the manufacturers and are unaffected by a lawsuit against your installer. If your system is underproducing, the manufacturer claim path in the installer-out-of-business guide works today, while the AG case will take years.
If you are selling or buying a home with one of these systems
An AG suit against the installer is a disclosure question, not a title defect, but it touches three things that are.
- The UCC-1 fixture filing stays until the lender releases it. A pending AG suit asking for lien releases is not a lien release. Title will still require a payoff or a subordination at closing. See the UCC lien guide for title companies.
- Unpermitted and unfinished work is the buyer's problem after closing. Michigan and Texas both allege missing permits and failed inspections. A system that was never inspected is an open permit at closing, and a system that was never granted permission to operate may not be legally exporting to the grid.
- A seller who knows the installer has been sued for the savings claims has a material fact to disclose. In most states the seller disclosure asks about known defects and pending claims affecting the property. A loan the seller is disputing under the Holder Rule, or a system producing a fraction of what the contract promised, belongs on that form.
Your next steps, in order
- Confirm who installed your system and who holds the loan. The installer name on the contract and the lender name on your monthly statement are often different companies.
- File a consumer complaint with your state attorney general, with documents attached. Do it even if the company has not been sued in your state yet; a complaint volume is what starts these cases.
- Send the lender a written Holder Rule dispute if you were promised savings or a tax credit you did not get. Keep paying while it is pending.
- Pull your system's production history from the monitoring app and compare it to the production estimate in your contract. That gap is your evidence.
- Check the permit record with your city or county. If the final inspection was never passed, get it done; the AG case will not do it for you.
- File manufacturer warranty claims for any failed equipment directly. The installer is not needed.
Frequently asked questions
No. Only a judgment or settlement that specifically orders cancellation does, and only for the customers it covers. Until then the loan is enforceable and the lien stands. Michigan and New York have asked for that relief; none has been granted as of October 2026.
Not directly, but the complaint is public and usually detailed. It documents the sales script, the fee structure and the lender relationships, which is useful evidence in your own Holder Rule dispute or in a complaint to your own AG. G3 Solar, for example, has now been sued in Ohio and Kansas and sold in several other states.
Against the company, mostly. Against the individuals and the lenders, no. Kansas named the owners personally. Virginia and Michigan named the lenders. Those defendants are not in bankruptcy.
No. An AG suit is the state enforcing consumer-protection law; a class action is private plaintiffs suing together; and an individual solar panel lawsuit or arbitration is you against the installer or lender. The three can run at the same time. Most solar contracts carry an arbitration clause, which is why a solar lawyer will usually look at the lender under the FTC Holder Rule first, where the state cases have already laid out the evidence. If your solar company went out of business or your panels are not working, tell us what happened and we pass it to an independent consumer attorney, free.
No. Dispute in writing and keep paying. A default gives the lender a clean collection claim and damages your credit, and no state has told customers to stop paying.
Sources
- Ohio Attorney General, AG Yost Sues Solar Company for Allegedly Deceiving Ohio Consumers, January 12, 2026
- Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Miyares v. Waller et al., complaint, E.D. Va., January 2026
- New York Attorney General, Attorney General James Sues Home Solar Power Company and Lenders, March 17, 2026
- Texas Attorney General, Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues San Antonio-Based Solar Company, May 21, 2026
- Michigan Attorney General, AG Nessel Files Lawsuit Against Solar Company, Financial Institutions, July 15, 2026
- WIBW, Kobach files petition against solar company claiming fraudulent sales scheme, September 28, 2026 and KCLY Radio, September 29, 2026
- 16 C.F.R. Part 433, Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses (the FTC Holder Rule)