The GoodLeap lawsuits center on three recurring allegations: that the company built hidden “dealer fees” into solar loans while advertising low interest rates, that partner installers used its digital signing process to enroll homeowners in loans they never knowingly agreed to, and that consumers were left paying GoodLeap for systems that stopped working after their installers went bankrupt. Cases have been brought by at least one state attorney general, by individual borrowers in federal court, and through class arbitration in California, with outcomes so far ranging from cancelled loans and statewide injunctions to forced arbitration.
The Hidden Dealer Fee at the Heart of the Cases
Most legal actions against GoodLeap trace back to a financing charge called the “dealer fee.” When a homeowner finances a solar system through GoodLeap instead of paying cash, GoodLeap charges the installer an upfront fee that typically runs between 10 and 30 percent of the system’s cost, with some documented fees above 50 percent.1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Solar Financing Market Issue Spotlight The installer then adds that fee back into the price the homeowner sees on the loan. A system that would cost $20,000 in cash can appear on the loan paperwork at $25,000 or more.2Center for Responsible Lending. The Shady Side of Solar Financing
Regulators and plaintiffs say this markup is effectively a concealed finance charge, disguising the true cost of credit and making the loan look cheaper than it is. According to those allegations, installers were contractually barred from telling homeowners about the fee or explaining that cash would be a better deal.3PV Magazine USA. Minnesota Sues GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, and Dividend Over Dealer Fees The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s August 2024 spotlight report identified these hidden markups as a systemic problem across the solar lending sector.4Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Issue Spotlight: Solar Financing
Minnesota’s Case Against GoodLeap
On March 8, 2024, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued GoodLeap in Hennepin County after a six-month investigation, alleging deceptive trade practices, deceptive lending, and illegally high interest rates under state consumer-fraud statutes.5Minnesota Attorney General. Attorney General Ellison Files Solar Lending Lawsuit
GoodLeap was one of four lenders named, along with Sunlight Financial, Solar Mosaic, and Dividend Solar Finance. The complaint alleges those four companies together charged Minnesota homeowners roughly $35 million in concealed fees on more than 5,000 solar installations between 2017 and 2023. GoodLeap’s share came to at least $6.4 million, with an average fee of 19.32 percent per loan.3PV Magazine USA. Minnesota Sues GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, and Dividend Over Dealer Fees Ellison is seeking an injunction, accurate finance-charge disclosures, consumer refunds, and civil penalties.
Forged Signatures and Loans Consumers Say They Never Signed
A second thread running through GoodLeap litigation involves allegations that sales agents for partner installers manipulated the electronic signing process to enroll homeowners in loans without their informed consent. Because the loan application typically happens on a tablet or phone controlled by the salesperson, consumers in multiple states have said they were asked to tap a screen to “get started” or to sign what they believed was a preliminary estimate, only to learn later they had been signed up for a decades-long loan.
A National Consumer Law Center letter to the CFPB described several such cases. A 79-year-old Texas woman alleged her signature was forged on two GoodLeap loans totaling more than $124,000 after she touched a tablet she thought was for an estimate. An 81-year-old Pennsylvania widow said she was told the panels would be “free” and signed a tablet believing it was for installation, then discovered an $18,900 loan. Other cases involved sales agents creating fake email addresses for consumers or taking control of a consumer’s phone to sign documents.6National Consumer Law Center. TILA and E-Sign Letter to CFPB
One case reached federal court in New Jersey. In Shoukat v. GoodLeap, LLC, Raja Shoukat alleged that after he agreed to what he understood as a $25,000 solar project, the defendants used his personal information, including his Social Security number, to fabricate a 25-year, $142,948 loan contract with forged signatures, forged initials, and an incorrect email address. GoodLeap was dismissed from the case by stipulation, and the Titan Solar entities filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. That left installer Sunbeam Solar as the sole remaining defendant. In April 2025, a federal judge entered a default judgment against Sunbeam for $428,845 in actual and treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and ordered the company to remove the panels and repair Shoukat’s property.7Justia. Shoukat v. GoodLeap, LLC et al
GoodLeap says roughly 0.05 percent of its transactions are found to be fraudulent, and it has pointed to compliance measures including a “Recheck” tool, facial recognition for identity verification, and video confirmations of loan terms. Starting in 2025, the company said, an independent representative calls customers over 65 to verify their understanding of the agreement.8San Antonio Express-News. Rooftop Solar Energy Loans Texas Hidden Fees
When Your Solar Installer Goes Bankrupt
More than 100 residential solar dealers and installers filed for bankruptcy in 2023. Two of the biggest collapses, Pink Energy and Titan Solar Power, left thousands of homeowners still owing GoodLeap while their systems no longer worked and their warranties were worthless.
Pink Energy filed in October 2022 after complaints about defective installations, roof damage, and unmet energy-savings promises. In November 2022, a nine-state coalition of attorneys general led by North Carolina and Kentucky sent a letter to GoodLeap and four other solar lenders asking them to suspend loan payments and interest accrual for Pink Energy customers with non-functioning systems.9North Carolina Department of Justice. Attorney General Josh Stein Calls on Five Solar Lending Companies to Suspend Loan Payments
Whether GoodLeap itself could be held responsible for a bankrupt installer’s conduct was tested in a Georgia arbitration. A consumer identified as Parker alleged that a Pink Energy salesperson made false promises about savings and rebates, controlled the iPad during signing, and left her with a $90,000 loan for a system that damaged her roof and failed to perform. After Pink Energy went bankrupt, she pursued GoodLeap directly. The arbitrator, a former Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, ruled that Pink Energy had acted as GoodLeap’s agent. He pointed to the financing agreement between the two companies, which gave GoodLeap control over Pink Energy’s customer service timelines, warranty requirements, and workmanship standards, along with the right to terminate the relationship, and he found that GoodLeap paid “kickbacks” to Pink Energy for financing contracts. Parker’s $90,000 loan was cancelled in full, she recovered roughly $13,000 in damages, and GoodLeap was ordered to pay her attorney’s fees.10Kneupper & Covey. GoodLeap Loses Key Solar Arbitration
Titan Solar Power, which had an estimated 150,000-plus customers, abruptly ceased operations on June 13, 2024, and filed Chapter 7 a week later. Because loans were with GoodLeap and other third-party lenders rather than with Titan, borrowers remained legally obligated to keep paying even though their installer no longer existed.11Prevost Law Firm. What Happened to Titan Solar Homeowners reported non-functioning systems, incomplete installations, roof damage, and worthless 25-year warranties.12Diaz Law Firm. Solar Panel Fraud, Lies, Scams, and Unfair Contracts Consumer attorneys have pointed to the FTC Holder Rule as a potential path for borrowers to assert seller-related defenses against a lender when the original seller delivered defective or misrepresented goods.
Whether You Can Sue or Must Arbitrate
GoodLeap’s loan contracts include mandatory arbitration clauses and class-action waivers. Whether those clauses hold up has become one of the most actively litigated questions in these cases, and the answer often turns on a narrow but important distinction: courts have been more willing to enforce arbitration when a borrower admits signing the loan but claims fraud, and less willing when the borrower denies signing at all.
In McConville v. GoodLeap (E.D. Mich., 2024), the plaintiffs conceded they had electronically signed the loan documents and had made payments, but argued fraud in the inducement and unconscionability. The court found that because those challenges targeted the contract as a whole rather than the arbitration clause specifically, a broad delegation provision sent the entire dispute to an arbitrator. The case was dismissed to arbitration.13CaseMine. McConville v. GoodLeap, LLC
The result was different in Bride v. GoodLeap (W.D. Mo., 2024), where Venetia Bride alleged she never signed the loan contract and never authorized anyone to sign for her. The court denied GoodLeap’s motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that when a plaintiff challenges the very existence of a contract, the question belongs to a court rather than an arbitrator. The judge found GoodLeap had not proven a valid agreement, noting that the company offered a DocuSign certificate but no testimony from the sales representatives present at signing.14GovInfo. Bride v. Goodleap, LLC The case later settled and was dismissed with prejudice in January 2025.15PACER Monitor. Bride v. Goodleap, LLC
The same reasoning surfaced in Montgomery v. GoodLeap (W.D.N.C., 2026), where the plaintiff alleged illiteracy and coercion and denied authorizing the loan. Chief Judge Martin Reidinger first denied arbitration, citing the Fourth Circuit rule that delegation clauses cannot be enforced when contract formation itself is disputed.16NC Bankruptcy Expert. Montgomery v. GoodLeap – Arbitration Denied On reconsideration in June 2026, the court modified its approach and ordered a trial on the threshold question of whether a valid agreement was ever formed, with a pretrial conference set for July 2026.17PACER Monitor. Montgomery v. Goodleap, LLC et al
California Injunction and Class Action
In April 2024, an arbitration styled Cervantes v. Solgen Construction, et al. produced a statewide injunction against GoodLeap. The case involved allegations that GoodLeap and installer Solgen relied on forged electronic signatures to sign consumers up for multi-decade loans on panels represented as “free.” The injunction prohibits GoodLeap from collecting on any loan that fails to comply with the right-to-cancel provisions of California’s Home Solicitation Sales Act after a consumer validly exercises the right to cancel.18Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg. Recent Successes
GoodLeap also faces a separate class-action lawsuit alleging noncompliance with California consumer protection law, according to reporting by the American Prospect, though details on the current status and specific claims remain limited in available reporting.19The American Prospect. Sunburnt: Solar Salespeople Scam Homeowners
Where Federal Regulators Stand
The CFPB’s August 2024 spotlight report identified hidden markups, misleading tax-credit representations, and aggressive sales tactics aimed at older adults and non-English-speaking consumers as systemic problems in solar financing, and it referenced the Minnesota case against GoodLeap by name.1Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Solar Financing Market Issue Spotlight As of the Center for Responsible Lending’s July 2024 analysis, however, neither the Department of Justice nor any other federal agency had brought an enforcement action against any solar lending company.2Center for Responsible Lending. The Shady Side of Solar Financing The American Prospect has reported that under the current administration the CFPB has scaled back enforcement and has not issued new regulations for the industry.19The American Prospect. Sunburnt: Solar Salespeople Scam Homeowners For now, meaningful pressure on GoodLeap is coming from state attorneys general, individual borrowers, and private class and arbitration actions rather than from federal enforcement.