If you bought solar panels with financing, you are not in a lease. You took out a loan to purchase the equipment, and you make monthly payments to a lender — typically a separate company from the installer. Common solar lenders include Mosaic, GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Service Finance Company, and others. The structure of a solar loan creates different cancellation considerations than a lease — and in some ways, more legal tools may be available to homeowners with financed systems.
This page covers how solar loans actually work, why they’re different from leases, the federal and state laws that may apply specifically to financed transactions, and what homeowners should consider if they believe they were misled at the point of sale or are stuck paying for a system that doesn’t perform.
✓ Free intake review | ✓ Licensed attorneys | ✓ One flat fee if accepted
You don’t have to stay locked into a contract that isn’t working for you. Checking your eligibility is quick, confidential, and completely free.
A solar loan looks simple on the surface — you finance the cost of buying solar equipment over a fixed term. In practice, solar loans are structured in ways most homeowners don't recognize at the point of sale. Understanding how the loan is structured is the first step in understanding what may be cancellable about it.
When a homeowner signs a solar contract financed through GoodLeap, Mosaic, Sunlight Financial, Service Finance Company, or another lender, two things are being signed: the installation contract with the solar company, and the loan agreement with the lender. The loan is what funds the purchase. The installer gets paid by the lender at closing, and from that point forward the homeowner owes the lender — not the installer — the monthly payment. This separation matters because the installer and the lender often have different obligations under different laws. The Federal Trade Commission's Holder Rule (16 CFR Part 433) is relevant here — under the FTC's Holder Rule, the lender is generally subject to claims and defenses the consumer could assert against the original seller. A qualified attorney evaluates how the Holder Rule may apply to a specific loan.
Solar lenders typically charge the installer a 'dealer fee' — sometimes 20% to 35% of the financed amount — for offering the loan to the homeowner. That fee is folded into the principal the homeowner ends up financing. So a system that costs the installer $25,000 may end up financed at $35,000 or more, with the homeowner paying interest on the inflated total. Whether this was adequately disclosed at the point of sale is a question state UDAP statutes and federal TILA disclosure requirements address.
Many solar lenders file a UCC-1 financing statement on the solar equipment as collateral for the loan. This is filed against the equipment itself, not against the home. However, even a UCC-1 on equipment can sometimes create complications during a home sale or refinance — title companies may flag it during a transaction. A qualified attorney evaluates whether a UCC-1 has been filed in your case and how it may affect a sale or refinance.
With many solar loans, the lender pays the installer at the point of installation — before the system has been activated, before the utility has approved interconnection, and before the homeowner has produced a single kilowatt-hour. Some homeowners are making loan payments for months before the system actually starts producing. Whether the loan payment schedule and the system activation schedule were appropriately disclosed at the point of sale is another category state UDAP statutes and federal TILA disclosures address.
Solar loans involve federal financing law in ways solar leases typically do not. Several legal frameworks may apply depending on how the loan was structured, sold, and disclosed.
The federal Truth in Lending Act — 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq. and Regulation Z (12 CFR Part 1026) — requires lenders to disclose specific terms of consumer credit transactions: the Annual Percentage Rate, the finance charge, the amount financed, the total of payments, and the payment schedule. For loans secured by a primary residence, TILA also provides a three-business-day right of rescission. Inaccurate or missing TILA disclosures can extend the rescission period significantly. Whether a particular solar loan was structured in a way that triggers TILA's primary-residence protections is a fact-specific question.
16 CFR Part 433 — the FTC's Holder Rule — provides that the holder of a consumer credit contract is generally subject to all the claims and defenses the consumer could assert against the original seller of the goods. In plain language: if the solar installer misrepresented the system at the point of sale, the consumer may have claims against the lender (the holder of the loan) as well as against the installer. Many solar loan contracts include the required Holder Rule notice. A qualified attorney evaluates how the Holder Rule may apply.
Every state has a consumer protection statute that prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in consumer transactions. These statutes apply to solar loans the same way they apply to any consumer transaction — they cover misrepresentations about savings, system performance, equipment, tax benefits, and contract terms made by the salesperson at the point of sale. Many state UDAP statutes include fee-shifting and enhanced damages provisions that make these claims meaningfully different from a simple breach of contract claim.
16 CFR Part 429 — the FTC's Cooling-Off Rule — applies to sales of $25 or more made at the consumer's home. Most solar sales are door-to-door sales that fall within this rule. The rule provides a three-business-day right to cancel and requires the seller to give the consumer a written notice of the right to cancel. Failure to give the required notice can extend the cancellation period significantly.
Some states have enacted residential-solar-specific cancellation statutes. Texas SB 1036 (effective September 1, 2025) gives Texas homeowners five business days to cancel a residential solar agreement. Other states have varying provisions. Which statute applies depends on where the loan was signed and where the homeowner lives. A qualified attorney evaluates which state-specific protections may apply.
Submitting an intake with EMS or pursuing a legal review does not pause your obligation to make payments on your solar loan. Stopping payments without specific advice from a qualified attorney may result in default, damage to credit, collections, lawsuits from the lender, and other consequences that can complicate the case you are trying to bring.
This is particularly important with solar loans because the lender is typically a separate company from the installer — and the lender may move quickly to protect its interest if payments stop. Continuing to make payments is generally the safest course of action until a qualified attorney has reviewed your specific contract and provided advice based on your specific facts.
The more complete the documentation, the more thorough the eventual review can be. These are the core records commonly reviewed in a solar loan matter.
The signed installation contract with the solar company.
The signed loan agreement with the lender (GoodLeap, Mosaic, Sunlight Financial, Service Finance Company, or another lender).
The Truth in Lending Act disclosure form — sometimes separate from the loan agreement and sometimes included within it.
The original sales proposal or “design document” showing what was represented during the sales process.
Sales emails, text messages, voicemails, or marketing materials from the salesperson.
Monthly loan statements from the lender.
Utility bills from before installation and after installation.
System production data from the monitoring app or inverter portal.
Any correspondence with the installer or lender involving: service issues, production concerns, or complaints.
Many homeowners cannot locate the original loan agreement years after signing.
Under federal law, consumers generally have a right to request copies of documents they signed.
EMS intake specialists may help identify which records are most important and may suggest written requests to the lender for missing documents.
✓ Free intake review | ✓ Licensed attorneys handle the legal work
EMS is a marketing and intake service. Legal review and any legal action are performed by qualified attorneys, not by EMS.
An EMS specialist discusses what was promised, what the loan documents say, and what has happened since installation.
The intake process typically takes about 15 minutes.
You provide the loan agreement, installation contract, sales materials, utility bills, and production data.
EMS collects and organizes the documentation. EMS does not analyze documents for legal violations.
If the case meets EMS’s initial criteria, documentation may be reviewed by a qualified attorney.
The attorney evaluates whether the facts may support review under: TILA, state UDAP statutes, or other applicable laws.
The attorney alone decides whether to accept the matter.
If a qualified attorney accepts the case, the homeowner enters a flat-fee engagement directly with the law firm.
Any fee is disclosed in writing before agreement. There is no hourly billing.
If the attorney does not accept the matter, there is no cost.
✓ Free intake | ✓ Licensed attorneys | ✓ Flat fee if accepted
These are the questions homeowners with financed solar systems ask most often. Answers are general information only — not legal advice. A qualified attorney evaluates how any of this applies to a specific loan.
It depends on the facts. Solar loans are consumer credit transactions subject to federal financing law (TILA, FTC Holder Rule, FTC Cooling-Off Rule) and state consumer protection law. Where the facts support claims under one or more of these frameworks, a qualified attorney may be able to pursue cancellation through legal channels. Whether any specific loan qualifies is a fact-specific question that depends on what was promised at the point of sale, what the loan documents actually disclose, and what the system has actually delivered.
The FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR Part 433) generally provides that the holder of a consumer credit contract is subject to claims and defenses the consumer could assert against the original seller. In plain language: if the solar installer misrepresented the system at the point of sale, the homeowner may have claims against the lender (the holder of the loan) as well as against the installer. Most solar loan contracts contain the required Holder Rule notice. A qualified attorney evaluates how the rule applies in a specific case.
This is one of the most common situations EMS sees. When the original installer is bankrupt or shut down, two things typically remain in place: the loan with the lender (which is generally not affected by the installer's bankruptcy), and equipment manufacturer warranties (which are typically issued directly by manufacturers like Enphase, SolarEdge, JA Solar, etc.). The installer's workmanship warranty and service obligations may be gone. The FTC Holder Rule may be particularly relevant here — claims that would have been against the installer may be assertable against the lender. A qualified attorney evaluates this on a case-by-case basis.
Submitting an intake is free. The initial review is free. There is no cost until the case is accepted by a qualified attorney and you agree in writing to the flat-fee engagement. The flat fee is disclosed up front. If the attorney does not accept the matter, you owe nothing.
EMS does not provide guidance on credit. Decisions about credit, payment, and the financial consequences of a particular legal action are not within the scope of what we provide. A qualified attorney evaluates how a particular legal action may interact with your specific financial situation. Generally speaking, continuing to make payments on the loan while a matter is being reviewed is the safest course of action — but only the attorney engaged on your case can advise on payment decisions specific to your situation.
Misrepresentations about tax credits are a common category of state UDAP claims. If the salesperson told the homeowner they would receive a specific federal tax credit they were not actually eligible to claim — for example, if the homeowner doesn't have sufficient tax liability to use the credit — that may be a category of misrepresentation a qualified attorney evaluates. The Residential Clean Energy Credit (Section 25D) expired on December 31, 2025 for systems purchased directly by homeowners, which has affected the tax-credit landscape going forward.
A UCC-1 financing statement is a public filing that gives a lender a security interest in specific collateral. For solar loans, the UCC-1 is filed against the solar equipment itself — not against the home. The home is not collateral for the loan. However, even though the UCC-1 is on the equipment, it can sometimes create complications during a home sale or refinance — title companies may flag it. A qualified attorney evaluates whether a UCC-1 has been filed in a specific case and what it means for the homeowner's options.
Production shortfall is one of the most common patterns EMS sees in solar loan cases. The first step is documenting it — utility bills from before and after installation, production data from the monitoring app, and the original sales proposal showing what was promised. If actual production is significantly below what was promised, that may support claims under state UDAP statutes (the sales pitch was deceptive) or breach of contract (the contract contains a production guarantee that the system isn't meeting). A qualified attorney evaluates which legal framework applies.
The FTC Holder Rule provides one path for asserting claims against the lender for misconduct by the installer. State UDAP statutes vary in how they treat lender liability for misconduct by an associated installer. Federal TILA claims are made against the lender directly when the disclosures are deficient. Whether the lender can be brought into a specific case depends on the facts and the laws of the homeowner's state. A qualified attorney evaluates this during the legal review.
Timelines vary. The EMS intake and document gathering typically takes one to three weeks. If the case proceeds to attorney review and the attorney accepts the matter, the legal process typically takes several months. Some state UDAP statutes have pre-suit notice requirements that build delay into every case. Complex matters, or matters where the installer is in bankruptcy, may take longer. A qualified attorney provides specific timeline expectations after reviewing your contract.
✓ Licensed attorneys handle the legal work | ✓ Flat fee if your case is accepted
Submit your information for review. EMS helps homeowners understand possible legal and contract-related options involving solar agreements, financing disputes, installation concerns, and misleading sales practices.
A home sale demands a clear title, yet many homeowners encounter an unexpected roadblock during the escrow phase: a public UCC-1 financing statement. Discovered during
Residential solar proposals frequently position “net metering” as a guaranteed mechanism to drop traditional electricity costs to zero. When a sales presentation uses this billing
When a residential solar installation company abruptly liquidates or ceases operations, as seen with prominent national brands like ADT Solar and Pink Energy, the corporate
For many homeowners, the first year and a half of transitioning to solar power feels relatively predictable. You receive your monthly statement, make your expected
The residential clean energy marketplace has become increasingly complex for property owners trying to navigate long-term energy agreements. In recent years, several large-scale clean energy
The modern real estate and consumer financing marketplaces have become increasingly complex for property owners trying to navigate long-term energy agreements. In recent years, several
