Suntria Lawsuit: Complaints, Financing Traps, and Investigations

There is no single landmark lawsuit against Suntria, but the Arizona-based residential solar installer has drawn a substantial body of consumer complaints, a prominent newspaper investigation, and customer allegations serious enough to drive at least one homeowner into bankruptcy. The Suntria lawsuit picture is less about one courtroom fight and more about a pattern: misleading savings promises, installation damage, unresponsive service, and third-party loans that are hard to unwind once signed.

Suntria, incorporated as Arizona Solar Solutions, Inc. and based in Tempe, holds active contractor licenses in Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington.¹ Its scale across state lines is part of why complaints have accumulated in several places at once.

What Customers Are Alleging

The Better Business Bureau has logged 125 complaints against Suntria over the past three years. Service or repair issues account for 72, followed by 29 order-related complaints. Only 18 are marked “Resolved”; the remaining 107 are listed as “Answered,” meaning the company responded but the customer either rejected the response or never confirmed satisfaction.²³

Several themes recur:

Misleading savings promises. Customers report being told their systems would replace their electric bills or cover 90 to 96 percent of their energy needs, then finding actual production covered only 30 to 60 percent. Many ended up paying both a solar loan and a utility bill that was barely reduced.⁴
Installation damage. Complaints describe holes in roofs, granule loss from shingles, and water intrusion that damaged attics, insulation, and ceilings. One customer reported that installers used their fists rather than hammers to find roof trusses. Another said the company fixed the exterior roof leak more than a year later but never repaired the interior water damage.⁴
Difficulty canceling. Customers who tried to cancel were told they had passed the cancellation window or were simply refused. One said they were billed nearly $2,000 in fees for work not yet performed after attempting to cancel.⁵
Unresponsive communication. Sales representatives and managers reportedly stop returning calls after installation. Customers describe being transferred repeatedly, placed on hold indefinitely, and in at least one case having their phone number blocked.⁴

One customer reported paying $58,618 for a system that still did not cover their electricity needs, then being asked to pay $8,000 more to have panels removed so installation mistakes could be corrected.⁴ Another alleged that a contract signature on file was fraudulent and did not match their partner’s handwriting.⁵

The Express-News Investigation and the Janna Powell Case

A 2024 San Antonio Express-News investigation reviewed more than 1,000 complaints filed with the Texas Office of the Attorney General between January 2023 and April 2024 and found that 83 percent of those customers alleged they were misled by solar salespeople. The reporting spotlighted Suntria’s sales practices.⁶

At the center of the story was Janna Powell, a 65-year-old woman in Bonham, Texas, who said a Suntria sales agent pressured her into buying a 13-panel array despite her insistence that she could not afford it. According to the paper, the agent offered her a free washing machine and a $2,000 cash bonus to close the deal. Powell signed a $36,278 loan through GoodLeap at 7.99 percent interest; over the 25-year term, total payments would reach roughly $85,956, close to half the market value of her home. The system underperformed because of roof shading, and tree-trimming services promised by the sales agent were never provided. Powell ultimately filed for personal bankruptcy, while Suntria retained a lien on the panels.⁶

CEO Cody Veibell told the paper that Suntria went to “great lengths” to help Powell and suggested she might be experiencing “buyer’s remorse.” He said the company’s sales agents undergo background checks and training. The investigation also described an internal sales culture of “sales blitzes” of 100 doors per day, with agents told they could earn between $100,000 and $500,000 in their first year.⁶

How Suntria Has Responded to Warranty and Cancellation Demands

Suntria advertises a 30-year warranty covering components, production, labor, and roof penetrations.⁷ Customers have reported difficulty getting that warranty honored, with systems that stopped producing power, monitoring that never worked, and technicians who failed to return. In one case a required Enphase transfer switch for backup power had been omitted from the installation entirely, which the manufacturer confirmed.⁴

When customers raise repair or performance issues through the BBB, Suntria’s standard response is to assign a “Customer Experience Lead” and to request utility bills to determine whether the homeowner’s own energy usage might explain the shortfall. The company has explicitly denied requests for contract cancellations and reimbursements, stating that it does not control lender policies or tax credit eligibility.²

Why the Financing Matters

Suntria does not finance its own systems. Customers are typically placed into loans with third-party lenders, and GoodLeap, which funded Powell’s loan, appears frequently in Suntria customer complaints.⁶ That matters when a customer tries to walk away. Suntria has told complainants that because the loan is held by a third-party lender, the installer cannot void the agreement directly.³

The financing structure itself is drawing legal attention. A 2024 report from the Center for Responsible Lending described a common practice in which the finance company pays the installer and retains a “dealer fee,” the difference between the system’s actual cash price and a higher loan principal, with installers often prohibited from disclosing the markup. The report argues this may violate the federal Truth in Lending Act.⁸ The Minnesota Attorney General has sued GoodLeap and three other solar finance companies, alleging they concealed dealer fees ranging from 10 to 36 percent of project costs and inflated more than $200 million in projects between 2017 and 2023.⁹

UCC Liens and the Trap for Dissatisfied Customers

A downstream problem for unhappy solar customers is the UCC-1 financing statement, a lien the lender files against the solar equipment. Because panels are physically attached to the home, lenders sometimes file “fixture filings” in county land records, making the lien appear on title searches. That can block or delay home sales, refinances, and equity loans because title companies and buyers typically require the lien to be cleared before closing.¹⁰

Removing a UCC lien generally requires paying off the remaining loan balance or negotiating a buyout, after which the lender files a UCC-3 termination statement. If a homeowner defaults, the lender rarely repossesses the panels because the cost and roof damage make it impractical, and instead keeps the lien active and sues for the full unpaid balance. Even bankruptcy, which can discharge personal liability, does not automatically remove the lien.¹⁰ UCC-1 filings typically lapse after five years unless the creditor renews them.¹¹ That combination is why Janna Powell’s bankruptcy did not clear Suntria’s claim on her panels.

Regulatory Response in Texas and Arizona

Texas historically had no licensing or certification requirements for residential solar sales agents. The Express-News investigation helped catalyze Texas Senate Bill 1036, passed during the 89th legislative session, which now requires solar sales companies and salespeople to register with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, mandates cost and financing disclosures, prohibits deceptive sales practices, and gives consumers a five-business-day right to cancel contracts. Most provisions took effect September 1, 2025.¹²

In April 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an initiative to investigate fraud in the solar industry, issuing civil investigative demands to four solar companies. Suntria was not among the companies named in that round, but the AG’s office signaled the effort was only beginning.¹³

In Arizona, Suntria’s home state, the company holds ROC license number 338348 under the name Arizona Solar Solutions, Inc. The Arizona Registrar of Contractors database shows one disciplined case and one resolved or settled case on that license, with zero open cases as of mid-2026. The ROC notes that its public website does not display all sanctions or the full complaint history.¹⁴

For a Suntria customer weighing legal options, the practical picture is this: complaints to the BBB and state attorney general offices are documented and sometimes answered, the sales conduct in Texas is now regulated under SB 1036, and the loan sits with a third-party lender whose lien can outlast even a bankruptcy. No class action or state enforcement case naming Suntria appears in the public record reviewed here.

1
Suntria. Suntria Home Page
2
Better Business Bureau. Suntria Complaints
3
Better Business Bureau. Suntria Complaints Page 3
4
Better Business Bureau. Suntria Complaints Page 5
5
SolarReviews. Suntria Reviews
6
San Antonio Express-News. Solar Energy Scams Investigation
7
Resident Solar Power. Suntria Review
8
Center for Responsible Lending. The Shady Side of Solar Financing
9
PV Magazine USA. Minnesota Sues GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, and Dividend Over Dealer Fees
10
American Solar Consumer Law Project. Solar Panel Liens
11
Pender & Coward. What to Know About UCC Liens Before Going Solar
12
Texas Elder Justice. Reporting Solar Panel Fraud in Texas
13
Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Launches Major Initiative to Combat Widespread Fraud
14
Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Contractor Search – ROC338348