Public Record · Updated May 2026
Sunder Energy complaints trace back to one structural decision: the dealer-network model puts an unsupervised independent rep on your doorstep.
Sunder Energy operates as a sales organization that recruits independent representatives to sell solar on behalf of partner installers. In December 2024 the Delaware Supreme Court refused to enforce Sunder's restrictive covenants against a former founder-rep, documenting how reps were pressed to sign operating agreements 'before midnight' on New Year's Eve and later had their incentive units repurchased for $0. The reps are paid on closed contracts; the consequences land on the homeowner. If the install was misrepresented at the door, your loan still binds — but so does the installer and the lender behind them.
Written by Maria Gomez | Updated
Check your Sunder Energy paperwork for these issues
A match does not prove wrongdoing, but it identifies the documents and representations that deserve closer review.
- I signed a solar contract through a Sunder Energy sales representative.
- The rep made promises about savings, tax credits, or 'free solar' that did not pan out.
- The pitch was delivered in Spanish but the contract was English-only.
- The installer named on my contract is different from the company the rep represented.
- My loan principal is meaningfully higher than the system price I was quoted.
How to identify Sunder Energy in your records
- Loan paperwork lists GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic, or Dividend as the original creditor.
- Installer named on the contract may differ from Sunder Energy — Sunder typically sells on behalf of partner installers.
- Sales attribution paperwork or rep ID may reference Sunder Energy even when the installer entity is named separately.
- Door-to-door sale, often executed in a single in-home visit.
Recurring Sunder Energy complaint patterns
Dealer-Network Misrep
Independent rep with no employer accountability
Sunder Energy reps are typically classified as independent contractors and paid on closed contracts. The corporate compensation structure rewards the close, not the truth — and there is no in-house compliance officer reviewing what each rep said at each kitchen table. The result is a documented pattern of false savings projections, mischaracterized tax-credit eligibility, and 'free solar' pitches that the installer entity then disclaims.
Where to check: Did the rep introduce themselves with a company name that differs from the installer named on your contract? Did the rep promise specific savings, tax-credit dollar amounts, or 'free solar'? Document everything they said.
Potential impact: Foundational evidence for misrepresentation claims
Hidden Dealer Fee
Markup of 30%+ above cash price documented across this lending segment
Solar loans originated through dealer-network sales typically roll a dealer fee into the loan principal. The CFPB's 2024 Issue Spotlight on Solar Financing documented markup fees that increased loan costs by 30% or more above the cash price across the segment Sunder operates inside. The Minnesota AG's March 2024 enforcement action against GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic, and Dividend — Sunder's primary lender partners — alleged $35M in undisclosed dealer fees on more than 5,000 loans in Minnesota alone.
Where to check: Compare the system price you were quoted in the original proposal against the loan principal on your first servicer statement. A gap larger than 10% is the dealer fee in plain sight.
Potential impact: $4,500–$9,000 on a typical $30,000 system
Language Trap
Sales in Spanish, contracts only in English
Spanish-speaking households pitched entirely in Spanish and then handed English-only loan documents represent a recurring complaint pattern across the dealer-network segment. Several state UDAP statutes — and California's Translation Act in particular — make this kind of language mismatch independently actionable.
Where to check: Save voicemails, texts, and recordings in Spanish. Your contract being English-only is the second piece you need.
Potential impact: Often the strongest single-issue claim, where present
Tablet Signing
Documents signed on the rep's device in a single sitting
The dealer-network in-home flow follows the industry pattern: digital signatures captured on the rep's tablet during a single visit, no scroll-through, no copy left behind. Audit trails frequently show under 60 seconds spent on a 30-page loan packet — incompatible with informed consent.
Where to check: Request the e-signature audit trail (DocuSign, Adobe Sign, etc.) from your loan documents. The time-on-page log is part of the file.
Installer Confusion
Rep represented Sunder; installer of record is someone else
Because Sunder sells on behalf of partner installers, the corporate entity that actually installs the system, holds the workmanship warranty, and is responsible for service is often different from the company the rep was apparently working for. Customers report calling Sunder for service and being told they need to call the installer; calling the installer and being told the sale was Sunder's responsibility.
Where to check: Identify two entities from your paperwork: the sales-side entity (often Sunder) and the installer of record (often a different LLC). Both are potential parties; so is the lender.
Cooling-Off Defeat
Told the rescission window had closed when it had not
Federal cooling-off rules give you three business days to rescind a door-to-door sale. Customers report being told the window had expired before it actually had, or being given paperwork backdated to defeat the rescission right. Either fact pattern is itself a UDAP violation.
Where to check: Compare your contract's signing date against your first cancellation attempt. If you tried to cancel within three business days and were turned away, document it.
Public records and regulatory actions
Delaware Supreme Court (2024)
Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472 (Del. 2024), decided December 10, 2024. The Court affirmed the Court of Chancery's refusal to enforce — or even blue-pencil — Sunder's restrictive covenants against a former founder-rep. The opinion documented Sunder's contracting practices: incentive units pressed on reps with no negotiation, the operating agreement sent for e-signature on New Year's Eve with the rep encouraged to sign 'before midnight,' minimal-to-no separate consideration for the noncompete, and incentive units later repurchased by Sunder for $0. The case is the leading public record on how Sunder structures its sales-rep relationships.
Encouraged Jackson to sign the operating agreement before midnight. Jackson signed the agreement less than an hour later.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Ongoing)
Sunder Energy reps and the partner-lender loans they originate (GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic, Dividend) appear in the CFPB consumer-complaint database. The CFPB's 2024 Issue Spotlight on Solar Financing documented dealer-network markup-fee patterns of 30%+ above cash price across the segment Sunder operates in.
Minnesota Attorney General (cross-segment precedent) (2024)
The Minnesota AG's March 2024 enforcement action against GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Mosaic, and Dividend — Sunder's primary lender partners — alleged $35M in undisclosed dealer fees on more than 5,000 Minnesota solar loans. The legal theory targets the dealer-network finance model Sunder Energy operates inside, regardless of whether Sunder itself is named.
Sunder Energy by the numbers
- 332 A.3d 472
- Delaware Supreme Court reporter cite for Sunder Energy v. Jackson (Dec. 2024) Source: Delaware Supreme Court opinion
- $0
- Repurchase price Sunder paid for the founder-rep's incentive units after departure Source: Sunder Energy v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472 (Del. 2024)
- 30%+
- Markup-fee level above cash price documented in the CFPB's 2024 Solar Financing Issue Spotlight Source: CFPB Issue Spotlight on Solar Financing
- 16 CFR § 433
- FTC Holder Rule keeps the lender liable for the rep's misrepresentation Source: 16 CFR § 433.2 (Holder in Due Course Rule)
Possible recovery paths
Rescission
Possible outcome: Contract voided, loan unwound, lien released
Best fit: Cooling-off violation, language mismatch, or material misrepresentation at signing
Typical timeframe: 90–240 days
Holder Rule Claim Against Lender
Possible outcome: Loan principal reduced or eliminated based on rep misrepresentation
Best fit: Documented misrepresentation by the rep + lender currently holds the loan
Typical timeframe: 120–270 days through arbitration demand
Damages
Possible outcome: Money judgment plus attorney fees recovered under TILA / state UDAP
Best fit: Multiple violations stacked + documented financial harm
Typical timeframe: 9–18 months in JAMS / AAA arbitration
Documents to preserve
- Solar contract and proposal — note both Sunder and the installer of record
- Loan agreement (GoodLeap, Sunlight, Mosaic, or Dividend) and amortization schedule
- Texts, emails, and voicemails with the Sunder rep — including any in Spanish
- Sales presentation, savings projection, or 'cost vs solar' comparison
- All servicer statements (especially the first one, where the dealer fee shows up)
- Any cancellation attempt records (email timestamps, phone logs)
- E-signature audit trail PDF if obtainable
Frequently asked questions about Sunder Energy
Can I stop paying my solar loan if the system never worked?
Unilaterally stopping payment is risky — it triggers default, hits your credit, and gives the holder a head start on collection. The better move is a three-step sequence: (1) document the non-performance in writing (PTO date vs first-bill date, monitoring data, inspection failures), (2) preserve your right to assert the FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433.2) defense against whoever currently holds the loan, and (3) get a written eligibility review BEFORE you change your payment behavior. TILA § 130 fee-shifting means the lender pays your attorney's fees when you prevail, so qualified disputes do not cost you out of pocket. The eligibility review is the right way to find out if your facts qualify.
Can I sue the solar lender if the installer is bankrupt?
Yes, in many fact patterns. The installer's bankruptcy stops claims against that specific entity, but the lender that financed your loan is a separate, usually solvent, target. Under the FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433.2), the lender inherits liability for the same misrepresentations the installer made — false savings projections, fabricated tax-credit math, undisclosed dealer fees, signatures captured without time to read. Recovery under the Holder Rule is typically capped at amounts already paid into the loan, but in solar that frequently runs into the tens of thousands. Many homeowners assume their case dies with the installer and walk away — that is exactly what the lender's collections team hopes for. The eligibility review identifies whether your loan documents trigger Holder Rule liability.
What is the FTC Holder Rule and why does it matter for solar loans?
The FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433.2) requires every consumer credit contract that finances goods or services to carry a clause subjecting the lender to all the same claims and defenses the borrower could raise against the seller. Translated to solar: if the installer lied to you, abandoned the install, or never energized the system, those claims travel to whoever currently holds your loan. The rule caps the recovery at amounts already paid into the loan, but in solar that frequently runs into the tens of thousands. The Holder Rule is the single most important lever a homeowner has when the original installer is bankrupt or unreachable — it lets you press the case against a solvent target instead of a corporate shell.
How long do I have to file a claim against a solar lender?
Deadlines vary by claim type and state, and missing them is irreversible. As a rough primer: federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) damages claims usually run 1 year from the violation; TILA rescission is up to 3 years; the FTC Holder Rule cap is amounts paid; state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) statutes typically run 2 to 4 years (Texas DTPA = 2 from discovery, Florida FDUTPA = 4, California CLRA = 3, North Carolina UDTPA = 4, with treble damages mandatory). FTC Holder Rule defenses to a lender's collection action have no statute of limitations on the defense itself — meaning if the holder sues you, you can raise installer-fraud defenses regardless of age. Do not guess at your deadline. The eligibility review computes the live limitations window for your specific loan and state in two minutes.
Sunder Energy says they were just the salesperson — not the installer. Does that get them off the hook?
No. The installer of record, the sales organization that recruited and paid the rep, and the lender that financed the loan are all potential parties. Under state UDAP statutes, anyone who participated in the sale's misrepresentation is on the hook for the harm. Under the FTC Holder Rule, the lender inherits liability for both the sales-side and installer-side conduct. Trying to deflect to 'we were just the salesperson' is a defense, not a dismissal.
The rep promised specific savings amounts that never happened. Is that actionable?
Yes — verbal misrepresentations about savings, tax credits, or 'free solar' are actionable under state UDAP statutes even when the written contract contains a generic disclaimer. The disclaimer does not insulate the seller from fraud in the inducement, particularly where the salesperson knew or should have known the verbal pitch was false. The recovery is typically rescission (contract voided) or damages calculated against what was promised versus what was delivered. Documentation of the verbal pitch — texts, voicemails, witness recall — is the foundation.
What is the FTC Holder Rule and why should solar borrowers care?
The FTC Holder Rule (16 CFR § 433) requires every consumer credit contract that finances goods or services to carry a clause subjecting the lender to all the same claims and defenses the borrower could raise against the seller. Translated to solar: if the installer lied to you, abandoned the install, or never energized the system, those claims travel to whoever currently holds your loan. The rule caps the recovery at amounts already paid into the loan, but in solar that frequently runs into the tens of thousands. The Holder Rule is the single most important lever a homeowner has when the original installer is bankrupt or unreachable.
The installer that sold me the system went out of business. Is there anything left to do?
Yes. The installer's bankruptcy stops claims against that specific entity, but the lender that financed your loan is a separate, usually solvent, target. Under the FTC Holder Rule, the lender inherits liability for the same misrepresentations the installer made. Many homeowners assume their case dies with the installer and walk away — that is the result the lender's collections team is hoping for. The right move is to identify who currently holds your note and pursue the lender, not the dead installer.
My contract has an arbitration clause. Does that close the door?
Usually it opens a faster one. Most solar finance agreements force the homeowner into individual arbitration through JAMS or AAA. Lenders wrote those clauses to block class actions, but for an individual claimant the clause has a side effect they did not advertise: the lender pays the arbitration filing fee, your case is heard on its specific facts, and consumer-protection arbitrators tend to credit the kind of digital-signature, recording, and language-mismatch evidence that gets diluted in mass class settlements. Arbitration is often the higher-recovery path for the individual homeowner.
How do I know if my solar loan includes hidden dealer fees?
Check your Truth in Lending disclosure (TILA box) — specifically the 'Amount Financed' line. If that number is 20-30% higher than the system price the salesperson quoted, you almost certainly have an undisclosed dealer fee. For example, a $25,000 system becomes a $32,500 loan. The fee is paid by the lender to the installer at closing and buried in your loan principal, meaning you pay interest on it for 20-25 years. Request an itemized breakdown from the lender in writing; TILA requires accurate disclosure of finance charges.
Can I stop paying my solar loan if the system doesn't work?
Do not stop paying without legal guidance. The loan is with the lender (GoodLeap, Dividend, Mosaic, etc.), not the installer — and missed payments will damage your credit and may trigger acceleration (the full balance becomes due immediately). The correct approach is to assert your claims against the lender through the FTC Holder Rule or state UDAP statutes while continuing to pay, or under explicit advice from an attorney who has reviewed your case. Some homeowners negotiate payment suspensions during active disputes, but this requires formal legal action.
What happens to my solar warranty if the installer goes bankrupt?
If the installer files Chapter 7 (liquidation), the warranty is effectively worthless — there is no entity left to honor it. If the installer files Chapter 11 (reorganization), warranties may continue but service quality often degrades. In either case, the value of the lost warranty can be asserted as damages against the lender under the FTC Holder Rule. Document the original warranty terms, get repair quotes from third-party solar companies, and include the cost of a replacement warranty in your claim.
How long do I have to sue a solar company or lender?
Statutes of limitations vary by state and legal theory, typically ranging from 2-6 years from the date you discovered (or should have discovered) the fraud. State UDAP statutes often have 2-4 year limits; TILA claims have a 1-year limit for damages but can be raised as a defense at any time. The clock usually starts when the fraud was or should have been discovered — not when you signed the contract. Because these deadlines vary dramatically and can be complex to calculate, consulting an attorney promptly is essential.
Can I refinance or sell my house with a solar loan or PPA?
It depends on the type of obligation. Solar loans (unsecured or UCC-1 secured) typically can be paid off at closing like any other debt — but if the payoff exceeds the system's value, you may need to bring cash to closing. Solar PPAs and leases transfer to the buyer, who must qualify; many buyers refuse homes with long-term PPA obligations. PACE assessments are the worst case — they attach as a property tax lien and many lenders (FHA, VA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) will not approve loans on homes with outstanding PACE assessments. If a UCC-1 fixture filing appears on your title unexpectedly, challenge it through the process at [our UCC guide](/blog/remove-unauthorized-ucc-1-step-by-step).
Is solar panel fraud a crime? Can I press charges?
Some solar fraud rises to the level of criminal conduct — forgery (fake signatures), theft by deception, or criminal fraud. However, most solar disputes are civil matters handled through state consumer protection laws, not criminal prosecution. File complaints with your state AG and local law enforcement; the AG's consumer protection division can investigate pattern misconduct. Civil claims (suing for damages, loan cancellation, or rescission) are typically faster and more likely to produce recovery than waiting for criminal charges.
What does this cost me?
Solar Panel Scam Center charges nothing to review your situation. If your case has merit, we connect you with an independent consumer-protection attorney whose practice covers solar finance. Those attorneys typically work on contingency or under fee-shifting statutes — meaning you pay nothing out of pocket, and the defendant covers attorney's fees if you prevail under TILA, the FTC Holder Rule, or your state's UDAP. We are not a law firm; submitting an intake does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.
Why does this page use the company's name?
Solar Panel Scam Center is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any of the companies named on this site. Company names appear in a descriptive, factual context to identify the entities consumers are searching for and asking us about. This is nominative fair use under U.S. trademark law. Nothing on this page is legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship.
Related solar company guides
Organize your Sunder Energy documents
The eligibility review helps identify the seller, lender, current loan holder, disputed promises, and evidence already available. Solar Panel Scam Center is not a law firm, and submitting information does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Start the eligibility review