How to Cancel a Solar Loan: Rescission Windows, Lender Defenses, and What Actually Works

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Solar-loan cancellation is governed by federal statutes (TILA, the FTC Cooling-Off Rule, the FTC Holder Rule), state home-solicitation acts, state UDAP statutes, and the underlying contract. Deadlines are short and unforgiving. Consult a consumer-protection attorney before stopping payment, sending a rescission letter, or signing a settlement.

Overview

Most homeowners searching for how to cancel a solar loan are not actually asking one question — they are asking five different questions packed into the same phrase. The five paths below are also the five most common solar panel scams that reach our intake: cooling-off violations, TILA disclosure failures, state-law misrepresentation, never-installed systems, and Holder Rule defenses against the lender. The salesperson is not returning calls. The system is not producing what was promised. The installer just filed for bankruptcy. The lender keeps drafting payments. Each of those situations triggers a different set of legal levers, with different deadlines and different outcomes. Saying "I want to cancel my GoodLeap loan" out loud is the easy part. Knowing which of the five paths actually applies to your facts is the part that decides whether you keep paying.

This guide separates them. We walk through the federal three-day cooling-off rule, the TILA right of rescission (which most people misread), state Home Solicitation Sales Act overlays, the failure-of-consideration argument when a system is never installed or never turned on, and the FTC Holder Rule — which is the single most powerful tool a homeowner has against a dealer-arranged loan. Then we get specific on GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic, Dividend Finance, Service Finance, and EnerBank, because the lender on your paperwork changes the playbook.

If you want a structured eligibility review of your facts, our 2-minute intake routes the matter to a consumer-protection attorney in our network. We are not a law firm; the eligibility review tells you what fits your facts and connects you with counsel who handle these statutes.

"Canceling" a Solar Loan Means One of Five Different Things — Disambiguate

The first job is to figure out which "cancel" you mean. The remedies do not overlap cleanly.

1. Three-day cooling-off cancellation. A federal and state right to walk away from a door-to-door sale within three business days. Almost always the cleanest exit — but the window is short, and most homeowners discover the problem after it has closed. Covered in detail in our companion post on doorstep contracts.

2. TILA right of rescission. A federal three-business-day (or three-year, in narrow circumstances) right tied to specific kinds of consumer credit. It applies to fewer solar loans than people assume. We explain when it does and does not apply below.

3. State Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA) cancellation. Most states layer their own cooling-off statute on top of the FTC rule. Some are stronger (longer windows, indefinite extension if disclosures were missing, statutory damages, attorney's fees).

4. Failure of consideration / contract rescission. If the installer never finished, never turned the system on, or delivered something materially different from what was sold, common-law contract doctrines may let you walk — and assert that defense against the lender, not just the installer.

5. Holder Rule defense against the lender. The most common situation. The cooling-off windows have closed. The installer is gone, bankrupt, or stonewalling. You want to stop paying GoodLeap, Sunlight, or Mosaic. The FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR Part 433) is what gets you there — by treating the lender as standing in the shoes of the installer for purposes of your defenses.

Two related companion posts: PPA and lease cancellations follow a different framework — see solar PPA and lease cancellation. Payment-mechanics disputes (chargebacks and ACH dispute letters) are covered in chargebacks, ACH disputes, and the Holder Rule.

The rest of this guide walks each lever in order.

3-Day Cooling-Off (FTC + State HSSA Equivalents)

The FTC Cooling-Off Rule, codified at 16 CFR Part 429, gives a buyer three business days to cancel a sale of $25 or more made at the buyer's home or any location that is not the seller's permanent place of business. Saturdays count toward the three days; Sundays and federal holidays do not. Almost every door-to-door solar sale qualifies.

Two requirements matter:

The seller must give you, at the time of sale, two copies of a dated cancellation notice and an oral explanation of the right to cancel.
The notice must be in a specific format and on a specific schedule.

If the seller fails either requirement, the three-day clock arguably never started — and your right to cancel may extend indefinitely. Consumer-protection attorneys use this regularly to unwind contracts months after signing.

State HSSAs typically mirror or extend the federal rule:

California Civil Code § 1689.5 — three-business-day right; cancellation right may be extended if the disclosures were defective. See also CSLB requirements discussed below.
New York Personal Property Law § 425 — three-business-day cancellation right for door-to-door sales over $25.
Washington (RCW 19.95) — three-day right; contractor must release any recorded lien within 20 days of cancellation.
Colorado — adds a mandatory "welcome call" confirming key contract terms, which retriggers a fresh three-day rescission window.

If you are inside a state cooling-off window, you cancel by sending a written notice — certified mail, return receipt — that identifies the contract by date, signing location, and address, and states clearly that you are canceling under both the FTC Cooling-Off Rule and the applicable state HSSA. Email is acceptable if the contract lists an email address, but certified mail produces a stronger record.

When the cooling-off lever closes, the next question is whether TILA gives you a longer window.

TILA Right of Rescission (15 USC § 1635) — When It Applies, When It Doesn't

This is the single most misunderstood remedy in the solar-loan world. The Truth in Lending Act's right of rescission, 15 U.S.C. § 1635, implemented through Regulation Z § 1026.23, is not a general right to cancel any consumer loan. It is a narrow, powerful right that applies to a specific category of credit.

TILA rescission applies when:

The transaction is consumer credit;
It is secured by a security interest in the consumer's principal dwelling; and
It is not a "residential mortgage transaction" (TILA's term for a loan used to acquire or initially construct the dwelling).

When all three conditions are met, the borrower may rescind within three business days of the latest of: (a) consummation of the transaction, (b) delivery of the material disclosures, or (c) delivery of the notice of the right to rescind. If the lender failed to deliver the required disclosures or rescission notice properly, the rescission window extends to three years from consummation.

Why this matters for solar loans: many homeowners assume any GoodLeap or Mosaic loan is rescindable under TILA. That is not correct. Most dealer-arranged solar loans are unsecured. GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic, Dividend Finance, Service Finance, and EnerBank typically structure their solar loans as unsecured consumer installment loans — sometimes accompanied by a UCC-1 fixture filing on the panels themselves, but not a lien on the dwelling. An unsecured loan is not subject to TILA rescission.

Where TILA rescission does come in:

PACE financing — historically structured as a property-tax assessment with a lien on the home. The CFPB's 2024 final rule extended TILA-style requirements to PACE, and the rescission analysis is fact-specific. PACE loans are addressed in dedicated guidance because the foreclosure mechanics differ.
Solar loans secured by a deed of trust or mortgage — uncommon but not extinct. Some HELOC-backed solar deals or older home-improvement secondary mortgages qualify.
UCC fixture filings — whether a UCC-1 on the panels constitutes a "security interest in the principal dwelling" for TILA purposes is contested and fact-specific. Counsel should review the specific filing.

The Supreme Court clarified the mechanics of TILA rescission in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 574 U.S. 259 (2015): the borrower exercises the right by sending written notice within the three-year period — no lawsuit required to preserve the claim. The borrower does not have to file suit to rescind; the lender does, if it disputes.

In short: TILA rescission is real but narrower than the headline suggests. Pull your loan documents, look for a deed of trust or mortgage, and have counsel confirm before relying on this lever.

State-Law Triggers — CA, FL, TX, NY, AZ

When federal rescission is not available, state statutes carry the load. Five states with the densest solar-fraud activity:

California. Two stacks. First, the Home Solicitation Sales Act (Civ. Code § 1689.5) gives a three-business-day cancellation right. Second, the California Solar Consumer Protection Guide and Business & Professions Code § 7159 require contractors to provide specific written disclosures, including a three-day notice of cancellation. CSLB-licensed solar contractors who fail to meet § 7159's content and format requirements expose the contract to rescission and the contractor to discipline. CLRA and UCL claims provide additional UDAP-style remedies, including attorney's fees. See our California solar fraud guide for a deeper walk-through.

Florida. No HSSA-style three-day cancel right by statute, but the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) is one of the broadest UDAP statutes in the country. Misrepresentation about savings, system performance, ownership of the federal tax credit, or the existence of a "government program" can support rescission, actual damages, and attorney's fees. See Florida solar fraud rights.

Texas. No general three-day cancel for in-home sales, but the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) is one of the most consumer-favorable in the country, with treble damages for knowing violations. Specific solar misrepresentations — savings projections, tax-credit eligibility, manufacturer warranties — are textbook DTPA fact patterns.

New York. Personal Property Law § 425 gives a three-business-day cancellation right for door-to-door sales over $25. General Business Law § 349 provides UDAP remedies including statutory damages and attorney's fees.

Arizona. The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (A.R.S. § 44-1521 et seq.) reaches deceptive solar sales practices, and Arizona's Registrar of Contractors maintains a contractor recovery fund that can produce cash recovery when an installer goes under. See Arizona solar fraud guide.

State remedies and the federal rules stack — they do not compete. A single set of facts often supports both an HSSA cancellation and a UDAP claim.

"Cancel" Usually Means "Assert Defenses Against the Lender" — Pivot to Holder Rule

By the time most homeowners search for "cancel solar loan," the cooling-off windows have closed and TILA does not apply. What they actually want is to stop paying the lender without losing their home or their credit. That is not a "cancellation" in the contract-formation sense. It is the assertion of claims and defenses against the lender — and that is the territory the FTC Holder Rule was written for.

The structural reality: in a dealer-arranged solar loan, the installer sold you the system, but a separate finance company (GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, Dividend, Service Finance, or EnerBank) holds the paper. The lender wired money to the installer at install milestones — sometimes the entire principal — and now bills you monthly. When the system is broken, the installer is bankrupt, or the savings never showed up, the homeowner's instinct is to call the lender. The lender's instinct is to say "we are just the bank; sue the installer." The Holder Rule was created precisely to defeat that response.

Before going further, you need three documents on the table: the installation contract with the dealer; the credit contract with the lender; and any addenda or change orders. Our solar-case documents checklist lists everything an attorney needs to evaluate a Holder Rule case. Pull them now — the rest of this analysis is easier with paper in hand.

Want a structured eligibility review? Our 2-minute intake screens for the consumer-protection statutes that fit your facts (TILA § 130, the FTC Holder Rule, your state UDAP, state HSSA) and connects you with a consumer-protection attorney in our network. Free review, no upfront cost, no obligation. Start your free 2-minute review →

FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433): Your Single Best Lever

The FTC Holder Rule, 16 CFR Part 433, requires that consumer credit contracts arising from a seller-arranged purchase carry a specific notice. The notice provides that the lender takes the contract subject to all claims and defenses the consumer could assert against the seller of the goods or services. In other words: the lender does not get to be a "holder in due course" insulated from the dealer's misconduct.

The required notice, in at least 10-point bold type:

NOTICE: ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.

For solar loans, this means: if the installer fraudulently induced the contract, breached it, or never delivered the system, the lender stands in the installer's shoes for purposes of your defenses. You can assert those defenses against payment owed to the lender. In a 2019 advisory opinion, the FTC reaffirmed that the Holder Rule permits affirmative recovery from the lender — capped at amounts the consumer has paid under the contract.

Two practical consequences:

As a defense to payment. If the installer never finished or the system does not work, you can assert that as a defense to the lender's claim for payment. You should not stop paying unilaterally without putting the lender on written notice — but you do not have to keep paying indefinitely on a contract the seller breached.

As a basis for affirmative recovery. If you have already paid GoodLeap, Sunlight, or Mosaic for two years on a system that was never turned on, the Holder Rule lets you seek recovery of those payments — capped at what you have paid in.

Notice missing? Some solar loan contracts omit or bury the Holder Rule notice. Its absence does not extinguish the rule's application — courts have applied the substance even where the notice was missing, treating omission as itself an unfair or deceptive practice — but it complicates the case. An attorney should review the four corners of the contract.

The Minnesota Attorney General's 2024 enforcement action against GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Solar Mosaic, and Dividend Solar Finance pulled back the curtain on the dealer-arranged model: the lenders contractually direct the installers, share the dealer-fee economics, and routinely receive consumer complaints they ignore. That filing is, in effect, the regulator confirming the factual basis for Holder Rule liability across the four largest residential solar lenders.

Never Installed / Never Turned On (No PTO) — Failure of Consideration

A specific variant deserves its own treatment because it is one of the cleanest fact patterns: the system was never finished, or it was bolted to the roof but never received Permission to Operate (PTO) from the utility. The installer is collecting payment from the lender, the lender is collecting payment from you, and not a single kilowatt-hour has crossed your meter.

This is failure of consideration — a common-law doctrine that says when one side of a contract has wholly failed to perform, the other side is excused from its obligations. In solar, the contract typically obligates the installer to deliver an operational, interconnected system that produces power. If the installer abandoned the project after rooftop installation, never pulled the city permit, never coordinated PTO with the utility, or installed equipment that does not function — performance has failed.

How this interacts with the Holder Rule:

The failure-of-consideration claim runs against the installer.
Under the Holder Rule, you assert that same claim as a defense against the lender.
If the lender has already collected payments from you on a system that never operated, those payments become recoverable.

Practical sequence:

Document the non-operation. Photographs of incomplete work, utility correspondence showing no PTO, missing inverter installation, missing meter swap. If the system is producing zero kWh, pull your utility bills and your inverter monitoring portal.
Written demand to the installer. Even if the installer is bankrupt or unresponsive, send a certified-mail demand identifying the breach. This becomes Exhibit A in the lender file.
Written notice to the lender. Cite the Holder Rule. State that you are asserting failure of consideration as a defense to further payment. Demand restitution of payments to date.
Do not rely on phone calls. Get every demand and every response in writing.

If the installer filed for bankruptcy, the analysis still holds — the lender does not become judgment-proof just because the seller did. That dynamic is the subject of the companion piece, solar installer bankruptcy and lender liability under the Holder Rule.

Stopping Payments Without Destroying Credit — Written Disputes, CFPB, Escrow

The most damaging mistake homeowners make is unilaterally stopping ACH or autopay without papering the dispute first. The lender then reports a 30-, 60-, and 90-day delinquency to the credit bureaus, and the homeowner's credit score drops 100+ points before the dispute is even acknowledged. Once the score is hit, undoing the damage is slow and uncertain.

The defensive sequence:

1. Written dispute first. Before missing a payment, send a certified letter to the lender asserting your defenses (Holder Rule, failure of consideration, state UDAP). Identify the loan by account number and loan date. Demand the lender respond within 30 days. Keep a copy.

2. Revoke ACH authorization in writing. ACH autopay is convenient for the lender — and revocable by you. Federal law (Reg E and the NACHA rules) permits a consumer to revoke ACH authorization in writing. Send the revocation to both the lender and your bank. After revocation, any continued ACH debit is an unauthorized transaction subject to dispute under Regulation E.

3. CFPB complaint. File a complaint with the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database naming the lender, the installer, and the loan number. The CFPB forwards the complaint to the lender, which must respond on the record within a defined window. The complaint becomes part of the public docket and supports the regulatory pattern that helped drive the Minnesota AG action.

4. State AG and licensing-board complaints. Add a complaint to your state attorney general's consumer-protection division and, if applicable, the contractor licensing board (CSLB in California, ROC in Arizona, the state plumbing/electrical board elsewhere).

5. Consider an escrow account. Some attorneys advise depositing the disputed payments into a separate savings account so that, if the dispute resolves with payment owed, you can pay it without delinquency. This is jurisdiction-specific and counsel-driven. Do not improvise.

6. Monitor your credit. Pull your credit reports (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion) at the start of the dispute to establish a baseline, and set up free monitoring (your card issuer or Credit Karma is sufficient). If the lender reports a delinquency despite your written dispute, file a furnisher dispute under the FCRA — the lender now has 30 days to respond.

The goal is not to ignore the loan; it is to convert the dispute from a credit-reporting event into a documented contractual dispute. Done correctly, the lender's incentive shifts from "report and collect" to "settle and resolve."

Lender-by-Lender Notes — GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, Dividend, Service Finance, EnerBank

The lender on your paperwork shapes the playbook. Quick notes on each:

GoodLeap (formerly Loanpal). One of the largest solar lenders by dollar volume. Named in the 2024 Minnesota AG complaint alongside Sunlight, Mosaic, and Dividend; the complaint alleges contractual partnerships with installers that drove deceptive sales and inflated dealer fees. Loans are typically unsecured installment notes — TILA rescission usually does not apply, but the Holder Rule and state UDAP do. GoodLeap routinely sells loans to other servicers; assert defenses against whichever entity is currently collecting.

Sunlight Financial. Filed Chapter 11 in 2024. Named in the same Minnesota AG action. The bankruptcy does not extinguish a borrower's defenses — claims can be asserted against the post-confirmation entity or the loan-servicing successor. Prove up the dealer-arranged structure and the installer's misconduct; the Holder Rule rides through.

Mosaic (Solar Mosaic). Co-defendant in the Minnesota AG complaint. Loan structure mirrors GoodLeap and Sunlight — unsecured installment, dealer-fee inflated. Mosaic has its own complaint pattern around customer service and loan servicing; CFPB complaints are heavy.

Dividend Finance. Owned by Fifth Third Bancorp; named in the Minnesota AG complaint. As a bank-owned lender, Dividend has more institutional infrastructure but the same dealer-arranged exposure. Holder Rule analysis is the same.

Service Finance Company. Owned by Truist. Frequently appears on home-improvement loans tied to solar. Same dealer-arranged structure, same Holder Rule application. Less national press than the MN-AG four, but the legal posture is identical.

EnerBank USA. Acquired by Regions Bank in 2021. EnerBank loans are sometimes structured as zero-interest promotional financing with retroactive interest — read the disclosures carefully. The retroactive-interest clause has been a common complaint driver, and Regulation Z disclosures must be reviewed for accuracy.

Across all six: the lender's first response to a Holder Rule demand is usually "we are just the lender; talk to the installer." That response is wrong on the law. Push past it — in writing, with citations to 16 CFR § 433.

Documents You Need Before Calling Anyone — Link to /solar-case-documents

Before you call a lawyer, file a CFPB complaint, or send a Holder Rule demand, get these documents into one folder. Attorneys cannot evaluate a solar-loan claim without them, and the eligibility review at solar-case-documents walks the full list. Short version:

Installation contract with the dealer/installer. Every page, every addendum, every change order.
Credit contract with the lender. GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, Dividend, Service Finance, EnerBank — the financing paperwork, including the TILA disclosures (the "loan estimate" or "promissory note") and the Holder Rule notice if present.
Marketing materials and savings projections. The slide deck the salesperson showed you. Screenshots of tablet presentations. Any "savings calculator" outputs you signed off on.
All written communications with the installer and the lender. Email threads, text messages, certified-mail receipts.
Utility bills before and after install. The "savings" claim is tested against actual bills. Pull 12 months pre-install and as many post-install months as you have.
Inverter monitoring portal screenshots. If the system never produced or under-produces, the monitoring portal is the cleanest evidence.
Photographs of the installation. Every panel, every conduit, the inverter, the meter. Date-stamped.
Permits and PTO documentation. City permit, utility interconnection agreement, Permission to Operate letter — or proof of their absence.
Credit reports. Pulled at the start of the dispute, to baseline the credit posture before any delinquency event.
State licensing lookups. Confirm the installer's contractor license status and any disciplinary history.

Get all of this into one folder before the first attorney call. The eligibility review goes faster, the Holder Rule demand is sharper, and the lender's "talk to the installer" deflection has nowhere to land.

FAQ

Can I cancel after the 3-day window?

Often, yes — but the lever changes. The federal three-day cooling-off window closes quickly, but it can extend indefinitely if the seller failed to provide the required written cancellation notice and oral explanation. Beyond that, state Home Solicitation Sales Acts may extend or expand the window (California's HSSA is particularly strong on disclosure failures). Even when no cooling-off lever survives, contract-formation defenses — fraudulent inducement, material misrepresentation, failure of consideration — and the FTC Holder Rule allow you to assert claims and defenses against the lender well after the three-day window has closed. The right question is not "can I cancel?" but "which lever fits my facts?" An eligibility review answers that.

Does TILA rescission apply to my solar loan?

Probably not, unless your loan is secured by a lien on your home. TILA's right of rescission (15 U.S.C. § 1635) applies only to consumer credit transactions secured by a security interest in the principal dwelling, and only when the loan is not used to acquire the dwelling. Most solar loans from GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, Dividend, Service Finance, and EnerBank are unsecured installment loans — TILA rescission does not reach them. PACE financing and the rare HELOC- or mortgage-secured solar deal are different. Pull your loan documents and look for a deed of trust, mortgage, or recorded lien before relying on TILA. Counsel should confirm before any rescission letter is sent.

Can I cancel if the system was never turned on?

This is the strongest fact pattern outside the cooling-off window. If the system was never finished, never permitted, never received Permission to Operate from the utility, or does not produce power, the installer has failed to deliver what the contract promised — that is failure of consideration. Under the FTC Holder Rule, you can assert that failure as a defense against the lender, not just the installer. Document the non-operation: utility correspondence, missing PTO, photographs of incomplete work, inverter monitoring showing zero output. Send a written demand to the installer (even if bankrupt) and a written notice to the lender invoking the Holder Rule. Restitution of payments already made is on the table.

What is the FTC Holder Rule and how does it help?

The FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR Part 433) provides that when a seller arranges financing for a consumer purchase — exactly what solar installers do with GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, and Dividend — the lender takes the credit contract subject to all claims and defenses the consumer could assert against the seller. The lender does not get "holder in due course" immunity. If the installer lied, breached, or never performed, you can assert those claims as a defense against the lender's collection or as an affirmative recovery, capped at amounts you have paid. It is the single most important consumer-protection tool in dealer-arranged solar financing — and it is what the Minnesota AG's 2024 case against GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, and Dividend implicitly relies on.

Will canceling ruin my credit?

Not if you do it correctly. The credit damage comes from unilaterally stopping ACH payments without first papering the dispute — the lender then reports a delinquency before anyone evaluates your defenses. The defensive sequence is: written dispute letter to the lender first, asserting Holder Rule and state UDAP defenses; revocation of ACH authorization in writing to both lender and bank; CFPB complaint; state AG complaint; pull credit reports to baseline; consider depositing disputed payments into an escrow account on counsel's advice. If the lender reports a delinquency despite written dispute, file an FCRA furnisher dispute. Done correctly, the dispute becomes a documented contractual matter, not a credit-bureau event.

Can I cancel a GoodLeap, Sunlight, or Mosaic loan?

Cancel in the contract-rescission sense — only inside the cooling-off window or where TILA applies (rare for these unsecured loans). But "cancel" in the practical sense — stop paying, recover what you paid, defeat the lender's collection — yes, all three are textbook Holder Rule targets. All three are co-defendants in the 2024 Minnesota AG action that documented the dealer-arranged model. The companion company pages — GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic — break out the specific complaint patterns and recovery pathways. Same analysis applies to Dividend Finance and the bank-owned lenders. The key is documentation and a written, statute-cited demand — not a phone call.

Do I keep paying while I dispute?

This is a counsel-driven question and depends on your specific risk tolerance, state law, and the strength of your defenses. Three approaches: (1) Continue paying under protest — preserves credit but funds the lender. (2) Stop paying after written dispute — preserves cash and forces resolution but exposes credit to delinquency reporting. (3) Escrow approach — divert payments into a separate account, available to settle if owed, while the dispute is litigated. Option 3 is increasingly common in Holder Rule cases but requires attorney guidance to avoid technical default. For a structured walk-through of payment-mechanics options including chargebacks and ACH dispute mechanics, see chargebacks, ACH disputes, and the Holder Rule.

What if the installer went bankrupt?

The lender does not become judgment-proof when the installer files Chapter 7 or Chapter 11. Under the Holder Rule, your defenses against the installer ride through to the lender — that is the entire point of the rule. Recent installer bankruptcies — Titan Solar (2024), ADT Solar wind-down (2024), Vision Solar (2024), Lumio (2024), SunPower (2024), Sunnova (2025), Pink Energy (2022) — have left tens of thousands of homeowners holding loans with no installer to pursue. The recovery path runs against the lender. The full analysis, including the lender-side defenses and the specific bankruptcy fact patterns, is in our companion piece on solar installer bankruptcy and lender liability. See also: solar arbitration with lenders after installer bankruptcy.

Got blindsided by a solar deal that did not deliver?

You may have a claim — and the law may make the company that defrauded you pay your legal fees. Our 2-minute eligibility check screens for the consumer-protection statutes that apply to your situation (TILA § 130, the FTC Holder Rule, your state UDAP) and connects you with a consumer-protection attorney in our network if you qualify. Free review, no upfront cost, no obligation.

Start your free 2-minute review →