GoodLeap Lawsuit: What Minnesota's Attorney General Alleges About Hidden Solar Fees

Not legal advice. Solar Exit Group is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. This article summarizes public filings and statements for informational purposes only. If you have a GoodLeap loan and questions about your own contract, talk to a licensed attorney in your state.

Last updated: July 28, 2026. This case is active in Hennepin County District Court, and details may change as the litigation proceeds.

Short answer: Is GoodLeap being sued?

At a glance

All figures come from the Minnesota Attorney General's complaint and press release. (MN Attorney General complaint)

Who is GoodLeap?

GoodLeap LLC is a California LLC headquartered at 8781 Sierra College Boulevard, Roseville, CA 95661. It previously did business as Loanpal LLC. (MN Attorney General complaint)

GoodLeap is one of the largest residential solar lenders in the country. It does not sell panels or sign customers up directly, but works through independent installer partners, who present GoodLeap financing alongside, or instead of, a cash price. That installer-as-middleman structure is central to what Minnesota alleges went wrong.

What Minnesota filed on March 8, 2024

Attorney General Keith Ellison filed suit in Hennepin County District Court after a six-month investigation into residential solar financing. (MN Attorney General)

The complaint names four defendants: GoodLeap LLC, Sunlight Financial LLC, Solar Mosaic LLC, and Dividend Solar Finance LLC. It alleges they collected an estimated $35 million in hidden fees from Minnesota consumers since 2017, across more than 5,000 purchases. (MN Attorney General complaint)

Most hidden fees allegedly increased what borrowers paid by 15% to 30% compared to paying cash or getting an independent loan; some borrowers allegedly paid up to 54% more.

How the alleged scheme worked

The complaint describes a pattern common to all four defendants. According to the allegations:

1. The pitch centers on a low advertised interest rate. Installers market the loan's APR as attractive.
2. An upfront "dealer fee" is folded into the system price, before the loan amount is calculated, rather than disclosed as a separate line item.
3. The fee never appears in the sales proposal describing the system and financing terms.
4. The fee never appears in the lender's origination disclosures either, meaning no document isolates and names it.
5. Installers are contractually barred from explaining it, per the complaint, even if a customer asks.
6. Cash prices were allegedly pushed upward to match. The complaint further alleges lenders pressured solar companies to raise cash prices so they would look comparable to the inflated financed price.

A simple illustration, using only the complaint's own percentages, shows why this matters. On a $30,000 cash-price system, a dealer fee at GoodLeap's alleged average of 19.32% would push the financed loan to roughly $35,800, with no disclosure showing that nearly $5,800 is a fee rather than equipment or labor. At the top of the alleged range, 34%, the same system would carry roughly $10,200 in added fees. This is illustrative only, not a claim about any specific loan.

The GoodLeap-specific numbers

The complaint isolates figures specific to GoodLeap, separate from the other three defendants:

These are allegations from the state's complaint, not findings by a court. (MN Attorney General complaint)

The five counts, explained

According to a federal court order summarizing the complaint, Minnesota brought five counts. Not every count targets every defendant.

Counts IV and V do not name all four defendants: Count IV excludes Dividend, and Count V excludes Sunlight, reflecting each company's regulatory status. (Remand order, govinfo)

The state seeks an injunction, accurate representations and proper finance-charge disclosures, restitution or remediation for harmed purchasers, and civil penalties. (MN Attorney General complaint)

Why the case bounced between courts

The procedural path has been complicated, and it shows how hard these defendants litigate.

Dividend Solar Finance had merged into Fifth Third Bank before the lawsuit was filed. Fifth Third and Sunlight removed the case to federal court, docketed as 0:24-cv-01181 in the District of Minnesota. Minnesota's motion to remand was denied on October 22, 2024, by U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez. (Justia) The case was then folded into a larger federal proceeding, MDL No. 24-3128. (D. Minn. MDL page)

After Minnesota amended its complaint, the federal court granted remand on January 16, 2025, sending the case back to Hennepin County District Court, where it remains. (Remand order, govinfo)

For a homeowner, the takeaway is simple: these companies have the resources to fight over jurisdiction for more than a year before the merits are litigated, useful context when weighing your own leverage against a large lender.

The case has not gone to trial, and no court has found GoodLeap liable. The lenders reject the claims and say their disclosures comply with the law. (Star Tribune)

GoodLeap's side and the legal counterargument

This remains an open legal dispute. GoodLeap and its co-defendants dispute Minnesota's claims. According to the Star Tribune, the lending companies reject the allegations and say their disclosures follow the law, and the case has not yet gone to trial. (Star Tribune)

There is also a genuine, unresolved legal question here. Mayer Brown notes that neither the CFPB's 2024 report nor the Minnesota lawsuit resolves whether these dealer fees may properly be treated as "seller's points," a category of charge excludable from the finance charge under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. (Mayer Brown)

If a fee genuinely qualifies as a seller's point, federal law may not require it inside the APR at all, even though state consumer-protection or usury law could still reach the underlying practice. No court has resolved this question, which is why the case is worth watching rather than assuming its outcome.

How the CFPB corroborated the pattern

The Minnesota lawsuit is not an isolated state theory. On August 7, 2024, the CFPB published an Issue Spotlight on solar financing describing a similar pattern industry-wide. (CFPB Issue Spotlight)

The CFPB identified four risk areas: (1) hidden markup fees, so-called "dealer," "program," "lending," "finance," or "platform" fees, or original issue discounts, often increasing loan cost by 30% or more above cash price, typically 10% to 30% and sometimes exceeding 50%, baked into principal without appearing in the stated APR (CFPB press release); (2) misleading claims about what consumers will pay, with loan principals sometimes presented as a "net cost" assuming the homeowner receives the 30% federal Investment Tax Credit, which is not guaranteed; (3) ballooning monthly payments, where loans require a large prepayment sized to the expected tax credit, leaving homeowners who don't qualify to pay it out of pocket or face higher payments; and (4) exaggerated savings claims, with homeowners reportedly told panels would cover financing costs and eliminate energy bills.

Notably, the CFPB report cites the Minnesota v. GoodLeap complaint directly, in footnote 31, showing federal regulators were tracking the same allegations Minnesota had already brought to court. (CFPB Issue Spotlight)

Wider context: other state and federal action

The Minnesota GoodLeap case sits inside broader state enforcement against solar sales and financing. Precision matters, because it is easy to blur separate cases together.

Minnesota's settlements. On July 17, 2024, Minnesota's Attorney General announced settlements with four solar companies, part of a broader series of enforcement actions. (MN Attorney General)

An earlier, separate Minnesota case. Before the GoodLeap suit, Minnesota had already sued Utah-based sellers Brio Energy, Bello Solar Energy, Avolta Power, and Sunny Solar Utah, plus lenders GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, and Corning Credit Union Services. That complaint alleged deceptive marketing, including unauthorized use of Xcel Energy's logo, calling salespeople "energy consultants," falsely promising no more electric bills, and using "suitability" checks to get binding signatures, and alleged that when homeowners tried to cancel, companies threatened termination fees, collections, lawsuits and liens. Notably, the lenders reportedly assumed liability for consumers' claims and defenses against the sellers. (Fox 9; State Impact Center)

New York's Attyx case does not name GoodLeap. On March 17, 2026, NY Attorney General Letitia James sued Attyx LLC (formerly SUNco Capital), its two CEOs, and lending partners Solar Mosaic and WebBank, alleging fraud through false promises of free repairs and solar installations. The AG asked the court to cancel all of Attyx's and its lenders' consumer agreements, plus restitution, damages, an injunction, and civil penalties. GoodLeap is not a defendant. (NY Attorney General; pv magazine USA)

Virginia's Power Home Solar case does not name GoodLeap either. On January 15–16, 2026, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares sued individuals and institutions connected to the defunct Power Home Solar (d/b/a Pink Energy) in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging nearly 4,000 Virginians affected, over $200 million in long-term loans, and almost 500 complaints of systems that failed or didn't save money, violating the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. GoodLeap is not named. (Virginia Attorney General)

Virginia also passed new disclosure legislation. HB 1439 and SB 823 set contract and mandatory disclosure requirements for residential solar sales, with civil penalties for violations. (Virginia Attorney General)

Together, these cases show a wave of state enforcement targeting solar loan marketing and disclosure, with GoodLeap named only in the two Minnesota actions above.

The Georgia arbitration decision

Beyond government enforcement, individual borrowers have pursued private claims against GoodLeap. The law firm Kneupper & Covey publishes its own account of an arbitration win against GoodLeap in Georgia, decided by a former Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court sitting as arbitrator. This should be read as the firm's own description of its case, not an independently verified court record. (Kneupper & Covey)

According to that account, the arbitrator held GoodLeap responsible for the conduct of its business partner, the now-defunct installer Pink Energy, under an agency theory. The client was awarded approximately $13,000, GoodLeap was ordered to pay her attorney's fees, and her $90,000 solar loan was cancelled in its entirety.

That agency theory matters to a common situation: what happens when the installer who sold and installed your system goes out of business, but the loan lives on. If a lender can be held responsible for its installer partner's conduct, a defunct installer does not automatically mean a homeowner is stuck with the loan regardless of what was promised. This is one arbitration result reported by one law firm, not a general rule.

Wikipedia's background summary on GoodLeap notes that, as of 2024, dozens of litigation and arbitration matters were reportedly in process involving customers who allege they were misled about loan terms or signed up without their knowledge, cited here only as general background. (Wikipedia)

What this means if you have a GoodLeap loan

A few things are true at once. The Minnesota lawsuit does not automatically cancel anyone's loan. It is a state enforcement action, not a class action, and any relief Minnesota obtains would be structured for Minnesota consumers under Minnesota law. At the same time, the fee mechanics described in the complaint are not unique to Minnesota; the CFPB's national Issue Spotlight described the same basic pattern industry-wide. (CFPB Issue Spotlight)

Your own leverage comes from your own paperwork, not from a lawsuit filed on someone else's behalf. To check for a possible dealer fee in your own loan, using only your own documents:

1. Locate your cash price, the amount quoted for paying outright, sometimes on an initial proposal or estimate.
2. Locate your financed amount, the total loan principal on your financing agreement.
3. Subtract the cash price from the financed amount. The difference is a rough estimate of fees folded into the loan.
4. Divide that difference by the cash price. The result, as a percentage, is a rough estimate of your own dealer fee rate.

This gives you a starting number, not a legal conclusion. Contract language, state law, and the specific lender all affect what, if anything, that number means for your situation. For the general playbook, see how to cancel a solar contract.

How to file a complaint

Minnesota residents can contact the Attorney General's office directly: (651) 296-3353 in the metro area, or (800) 657-3787 from greater Minnesota. (MN Attorney General)

Anyone in the country can file with the CFPB at consumerfinance.gov/complaint or by calling (855) 411-CFPB (2372). For a solar loan, first select "Payday loan, title loan, personal loan or advance loan," then select "Installment loan." (CFPB)

How Solar Exit Group helps

Solar Exit Group is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. We help homeowners nationwide organize what they already have: contracts, amendments, the financing agreement, UCC filings, production and monitoring data, utility bills before and after installation, interconnection paperwork, and sales communications, into a clean, indexed case file: a timeline, a side-by-side of promises versus contract terms, payment history and escalator math, any production shortfall, and lien status.

With your approval, we send that file to partner consumer-protection law firms licensed in your state, who can evaluate options such as unwinding a lease, PPA, or loan, removing a UCC-1 fixture lien, correcting a credit tradeline, or pursuing rescission or cancellation. The review is free, with no upfront cost, and no result is guaranteed.

FAQ

Get a free case review

If you have a GoodLeap solar loan and are unsure what fees are inside your financed balance, Solar Exit Group can help you organize your documents into a clear case file, at no upfront cost, with no obligation and no guaranteed outcome.

Call 833-765-2711 or email info@solarexitgrp.com.

Not legal advice. Solar Exit Group is not a law firm.

Sources