Solar Panel Class Action Lawsuit 2026: NYC & CA Affected Brands

Con Edison bills in NYC exceed 26 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity usage. PG&E customers in Northern California have crossed 30 cents. Solar companies knew those numbers well. Some used them to close contracts that never delivered. The solar lawsuit 2026 filings in both states are proving exactly that.

If you signed a solar agreement between 2020 and 2024, this matters. If your monthly bill looks nothing like the savings you were promised, you may have legal options.Both New York and California enforce robust consumer protection regulations. The question is whether your situation meets the legal threshold, and this article answers that directly.

Key Takeaways

• New York’s AG has pursued solar installers under General Business Law § 349, the state’s main consumer fraud statute
• Attyx Solar faced enforcement action in New York. It targeted elderly NYC and Long Island homeowners with misleading contracts.
• California’s NEM 3.0 cut grid export credits from ~30¢/kWh to ~5¢ in April 2023, old savings projections no longer hold
• Mosaic loan agreements in both states have drawn complaints. They included hidden dealer fees. These fees inflated loan totals by 20–30%.

Quick Navigation

• What the 2026 Solar Lawsuits in New York and California Actually Cover
• Did Attyx, Radiant Solar, or Your Installer Make Claims They Couldn’t Back Up?
• How Mosaic Solar Lending Is Being Challenged in Both States
• California’s NEM 3.0 Problem: When a Policy Change Kills a Projection
• What Actually Qualifies You for a Solar Class Action
• What to Do Right Now If You Think You Were Misled

What the 2026 Solar Panel Class Action Lawsuits in New York and California Actually Cover

You don’t need to prove you were robbed. You need to show you were misled. And that the same thing happened to others.

That’s the legal standard in both states. It’s lower than most people think.

New York’s Attorney General pursued Attyx Solar under General Business Law § 349. That law covers deceptive acts in consumer transactions. Most complaints were related to in-person sales conducted in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Long Island. Salespeople told homeowners the panels would be “free.” Others said the electricity bill would disappear entirely. Neither happened.

What many homeowners got instead was a 25-year Solar Mosaic loan. The monthly loan payment was higher than their monthly utility savings, from day one. That is not a performance shortfall. That is a false promise.

In California, claims of misrepresentation are addressed under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Home Solicitation Sales Act covers cancellation rights for contracts signed in your home. A review of complaints filed with California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation highlights a recurring trend.This occurs across multiple installers. They report inflated savings projections. Loan totals higher than verbally quoted. Salespeople claiming fake government affiliations.

Both states have the legal tools. The question is whether your situation fits.

Did Attyx, Radiant Solar, or Your Installer Make Claims They Couldn’t Back Up?

Three types of claims appear in most class action filings. Check whether any match your experience.

Savings projections presented as guarantees. A real savings estimate depends on several things. Your roof angle. Your utility’s rate over time. Your local peak sun hours. Your panel’s degradation rate.When a salesperson shows you a chart labeled “Your Annual Savings: $2,400,” it is misleading. They do not explain the assumptions behind it. It removes real uncertainty that was never disclosed.

Honest savings figures look very different depending on your state, utility, and roof. Most homeowners don’t realize how wide that range is. They only see it when reading how much solar panels actually save per year. This uses real state-by-state numbers. Any company that gave you a single firm number without those variables was not being straight with you.

Loan totals that don’t match what you were quoted. This is where predatory Mosaic lending complaints concentrate. Many Mosaic agreements include a “dealer fee” added to the loan principal. It is typically 20–30% of the system cost. It often wasn’t explained during the sales visit. A homeowner in Albany told the system costs $28,000, and then finding a $36,000 loan principal, wasn’t confused. The fee was hidden.

Fake government or utility affiliations. New York City consumer complaints document salespeople’s claims. They said their program was “approved by Con Edison.” Others said it was “part of a state energy program.” Neither claim was true. Both are documented in AG complaint files. And neither was unique to one company.

What I noticed when I reviewed complaint geography in both states is striking. New York cases cluster heavily in communities served by National Grid and PSEG Long Island. These areas have high enough rates to make the solar pitch believable. Homeowners are less likely to have access to independent installation quotes.

How Mosaic Solar Lending Is Being Challenged in Both States

Solar Mosaic is a lender. It is not an installer. That distinction matters legally.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys in multiple 2026 filings are making a specific argument. Mosaic funded these contracts. Therefore, Mosaic had a duty to verify that the savings projections were credible. When an installer puts a $2,000/year savings number in front of a homeowner in Flatbush, the lender’s liability is now being tested in both states. Mosaic funded a 25-year loan on that basis.

Here is a real example of how this plays out.

A homeowner in Rochester pays National Grid around $140 a month. That is roughly $1,680 a year. They financed a $34,000 Mosaic loan at 6.99%. Their monthly loan payment runs about $225. Even with a 70% reduction in their utility bill, they are paying more per month than before going solar. The solar payback period in New York for this homeowner isn’t 9 years. It may never arrive, because the loan payment permanently outweighs the savings.

That outcome is exactly what solar consumer protection laws in both states were designed to prevent.

There is a broader cost pattern most homeowners miss until after they sign. Most installers don’t mention hidden solar costs upfront. These include dealer fees, permit charges, and interconnection costs. These costs are what Mosaic loan complaints focus on. When they are quietly embedded in the loan principal without disclosure, that is not an oversight. It is a documented practice courts in both states are now examining.

For New York homeowners specifically, your Mosaic loan total may be higher than quoted. File with the New York Department of Financial Services. Document the verbal quote. Attach the signed loan disclosure. Note the gap. That file feeds directly into databases that class action attorneys actively monitor.

California’s NEM 3.0 Problem: When a Policy Change Kills a Projection

California changed its net metering rules in April 2023. The change was called NEM 3.0.

ior to that date, excess solar power sent back to the grid earned homeowners about 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. After NEM 3.0, that rate dropped to around 5 cents. That is an 83% cut in grid export value.

Most homeowners trying to understand whether net metering is still worth it in California use NEM 2.0 assumptions. That is what their installer showed them. Sales teams at major California installers continued showing NEM 2.0 projections. This includes those operating under Sunrun Vivint 2026 contracts. They did this well into the transition window. Some customers signed in early 2023. Permission to Operate for their systems was only issued after April 2023. Their entire financial case was built on rules that had already changed.

Here is the part most California homeowners weren’t told clearly: the date that matters legally isn’t when you signed. It is when your system receives permission to operate from your utility. This could be PG&E, SCE, or SDG&E. That is the date that determines which rules apply to you.

Take a household in Fresno. They pay around $280 a month. They are on a fixed income. A 9kW system sized under NEM 2.0 assumptions, but installed under NEM 3.0 terms, may reduce their annual bill by $1,200 to $1,600. The sales projection showed over $3,000 in savings. That gap is not a rounding error. It is a material misrepresentation under California law.

This matters directly for the Sunrun Vivint 2026 update. Since Sunrun acquired Vivint Solar, California complaints originally filed against Vivint have continued. These complaints now contribute to Sunrun’s legal exposure. No major settlement has been announced as of early 2026. But regulatory proceedings involving the CPUC and the California AG’s office continue.

What Actually Qualifies You for a Solar Class Action in Either State

A class action doesn’t require you to have been uniquely targeted. It requires the same deception that happened to a defined group. Same company. Similar timeframe. Same category of misrepresentation.

Here are the factors that support eligibility in either state:

• Your contract was signed between 2020 and 2024. The company is currently named in AG enforcement or active class filings.
• Your actual annual savings fall $600 or more below your written projection
• Your financed loan total exceeds the system price you were verbally quoted. That gap was never disclosed before signing.
• You were not given written three-day cancellation rights in California. Or your New York contract lacked required home solicitation disclosures.

What won’t qualify you on its own: general dissatisfaction. Performance issues from shading your installer are disclosed upfront. Or the ordinary gap between a projection and an outcome when the assumptions were clearly stated beforehand.

Class actions are built around specific, documented misrepresentations. Not every difficult solar outcome qualifies. But many do.

In documented settlements across both states, qualifying homeowners have received outcomes. These range from cash payments to full contract rescission. Your paper trail matters more than your frustration level.

What to Do Right Now If You Think You Were Misled by a Solar Company

Don’t find an attorney first. Start by preserving what you already have.

Pull together these documents now:

• Your original signed contract
• The savings projection shown during the sales visit
• Every Mosaic or lender loan statement
• Any texts or emails from the sales process
• Your Permission to Operate notice from your utility

That file is the difference between a qualified claim and a vague complaint.

In New York, The AG’s consumer protection division actively accepts solar fraud complaints. The Attyx case started with homeowner complaints, not a proactive investigation. Filing costs nothing. It directly supports ongoing enforcement.

In California, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation handles complaints. These are against solar lenders. The CPUC handles licensed contractor complaints. Both accept online submissions. Both share data with the AG’s office.

The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency is abbreviated as DSIRE. It is at dsire.org. It is the most reliable source for your current net metering rights and cancellation protections in both states. It is government-affiliated. It is free. It is state-specific.

The Solar Lawsuit 2026 Landscape in New York and California: What It Means for You

Solar lawsuit 2026 activity in both states is not slowing down. It is growing. More installers. More lenders. More homeowners whose NEM 2.0 projections have collided with NEM 3.0 reality.

Whether you benefit depends on documentation, timing, and which company issued your contract.

Solar itself still works financially for the right homeowner. New York’s 25% state tax credit, up to $5,000, combines with the federal solar tax credit, which takes 30% off your total system cost. On a $28,000 system, that credit alone saves roughly $8,400 before any state programs apply. In California, homes in the highest SCE and SDG&E rate tiers can still reach payback within 7–9 years. This is under NEM 3.0. It is especially true when battery storage is paired with the system.

The honest question for any New York or California homeowner is whether solar panels are still worth it. This depends on their specific roof, utility, and timeline. For many, the answer is still yes. The problem was never solar as a product. The problem was how it was sold to people who couldn’t easily verify the numbers placed in front of them. That is exactly what the legal process in both states is built to address. And in 2026, it is actively doing so.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there an active solar class action lawsuit in New York in 2026? 

Yes. The NY AG pursued Attyx Solar under GBL § 349. Private attorneys are actively building cases involving Radiant Solar complaints in NYC. They are also handling Mosaic financing claims statewide.

Can California homeowners misled under NEM 2.0 join a solar lawsuit? 

Potentially. Using NEM 2.0 projections for a system operating under NEM 3.0 may be considered a material misrepresentation by the installer. This falls under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

What is the Attyx fraud settlement in New York? 

The NY AG documented deceptive in-home sales. These targeted elderly and lower-income households across NYC and Long Island.File your grievance with the Consumer Protection Division of the New York Attorney General’s office. Preserve all original contract documents.

What is the Sunrun Vivint 2026 update for California homeowners? 

Sunrun acquired Vivint Solar. California complaints originally filed against Vivint carry forward into Sunrun’s legal exposure. No major settlement has been announced as of early 2026. Proceedings continue.

How do I know if my Mosaic loan terms were predatory? 

Check your signed loan disclosure for a “dealer fee” line item. If your financed total exceeds your verbally quoted system price by 20% or more, without prior disclosure, document it. File with New York’s DFS or California’s DFPI.

Does solar still make financial sense in New York after all of this? 

For the right home, yes. New York’s 25% state tax credit, the federal 30% ITC, and the 15-year property tax exemption still make solar viable. This is for homeowners with high bills and suitable roofs. The problem was the sales process, not the technology.

Morgan Lee

Morgan Lee is a homeowner and solar energy researcher based in the United States. After installing a rooftop solar system in 2022 and spending months comparing quotes, incentives, and installer reviews, Morgan realized how confusing and overwhelming the process felt for most American families. That experience led to the creation of SolarInfoPath,  a no-pressure, educational platform designed to help U.S. homeowners understand solar energy clearly and confidently. Morgan focuses on practical, research-backed information covering solar costs, installation timelines, federal tax credits, and long-term savings. All content on this site is written from a homeowner’s perspective with the goal of making solar energy simple and accessible for everyday Americans.