Michigan Attorney General’s $81 Million Climax Solar Lawsuit, A Solar Lender Seeks Dismissal, What the State Alleges and What Michigan Homeowners Can Do Now

A solar financing company named in Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s $81 million Climax Solar lawsuit is seeking to have the state’s claims against it dismissed, according to an October 19, 2026 report. The lender reportedly argues that it should not be held responsible for an independent installer’s sales practices and that its lending disclosures complied with federal law.

The underlying lawsuit, filed July 15, 2026, alleges that Climax Solar, its owner and several financing companies took part in deceptive home-solar sales and lending practices affecting about 1,700 Michigan consumers. The complaint identifies 1,689 financed transactions totaling $81,264,080.19 and alleges that $22,135,514.53 in financing charges were embedded in system prices without being properly disclosed.

A motion to dismiss is a request, not a ruling. It does not mean the lender has won, that the case is over or that homeowners must accept every disputed loan term. No ruling on the motion was verified as of October 20, 2026.

There is no public settlement, claim form or automatic compensation program in this case yet. Michigan homeowners who bought from Climax Solar can complain to the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Team, but a complaint does not guarantee loan cancellation, a refund or a payment.

Quick Facts: People of the State of Michigan v. Orbit Marketing, LLC, et al.

Detail	Verified information
Plaintiff	People of the State of Michigan
Attorney General	Dana Nessel
Case caption	People of the State of Michigan v. Orbit Marketing, LLC, et al.
Case number	1:26-cv-02084
Court	U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
Complaint filed	July 15, 2026
Solar installer	Orbit Marketing, LLC, doing business as Climax Solar
Individual defendant	Joshua Thompson, Climax Solar’s owner
Financing defendants	Enium Capital Group, LLC; Sunlight Financial, LLC; Cross River Bank; TriBeam Capital, LLC, doing business as Concert Finance; Regions Bank, doing business as EnerBank USA; Solar Mosaic, LLC; Sunnova Energy International, Inc.; and Harborstone Credit Union
Financed transactions identified	1,689
Total financed amount	$81,264,080.19
Alleged embedded financing charges	$22,135,514.53
Average financed purchase price	$48,113.72
Average alleged financing-charge percentage	27.24%
Latest development	A lender reportedly sought dismissal on October 19, 2026 (see the section below)
Class action?	No. The complaint says the state is not seeking certification of a Rule 23 damages class
Public claim form or administrator	None

Which Solar Lender Is Seeking Dismissal From Michigan’s Climax Solar Lawsuit?

An October 19 news report describes a solar financing defendant asking to be dismissed. The moving defendant’s identity, the motion’s filing entry and its full brief were not available in the public court materials reviewed for this article. The original complaint names eight financing-side defendants, and they did not all play the same role. The state separates companies alleged to have run financing programs and platforms from banks and credit unions alleged to have originated, funded, held or serviced loans. The docket for Case No. 1:26-cv-02084 is the primary source for the motion, the responses and any ruling.

What Is Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel Alleging About Climax Solar?

According to the complaint, Climax Solar used in-home sales presentations to persuade homeowners to buy solar systems with financing arranged through partner companies. Sales representatives allegedly promised that the systems would replace or sharply reduce electric bills, that federal tax credits would lower the effective cost and that installation would be fast.

The state alleges that some consumers signed electronic contracts and loan documents in a single visit without a meaningful chance to understand the terms or their cancellation rights. After signing, Climax Solar allegedly submitted the deals through lender-controlled systems and was paid based on paperwork or project milestones before installations were complete, connected to the grid or approved by the utility to operate. Some customers allegedly ended up with incomplete, underperforming or inoperable systems while still owing on their loans and paying regular electric bills. The allegations also include missing permits, failed inspections, property damage and unfulfilled rebates.

These are allegations in a government complaint, not findings after a trial.

How Much Financing Did Michigan Say Was Involved in the Climax Solar Case?

Measurement in the complaint	Amount
Climax-originated loan transactions identified	1,689
Total financed purchase amounts	$81,264,080.19
Alleged embedded financing charges	$22,135,514.53
Average financed purchase price	$48,113.72
Average financing-charge percentage	27.24%

The Attorney General’s announcement rounds this to about 1,700 consumers and roughly $81 million. The complaint’s comparison table also includes 78 Dividend-related loans totaling $3,542,849.07, but the complaint says Dividend is not a defendant in this case and that the state is pursuing related relief in separate multidistrict litigation. Not every loan in that table is a loan from a defendant in this lawsuit.

Why Is the Solar Lender Trying to Leave Michigan’s Climax Solar Case?

The reported defense raises a central question in solar-financing litigation: when an independent contractor allegedly deceives a consumer, when can a separate lender be held responsible? The lender’s two reported arguments address different issues.

First, a lender can argue that it provided credit under valid agreements and did not make the installer’s allegedly misleading statements. The state answers that the financing companies were built into the sale through dealer programs, application portals, funding procedures, servicing and collection. The complaint alleges that certain finance defendants ran portals, controlled forms and workflows, set program rules, set or enabled dealer fees, routed complaints and kept contract rights that affected account corrections.

Second, a lender can argue that its credit documents disclosed the loan terms. The state alleges that dealer or platform charges were embedded in system prices and not properly disclosed as financing costs. A claim that disclosure rules were met does not by itself answer the state’s separate consumer-protection, home-solicitation, fraud and unjust enrichment claims.

The state also alleges that financing companies kept servicing, collecting, reporting or enforcing debts after customers complained about signatures, incomplete installations, missing permits or systems that did not work. Whether those allegations make a particular lender liable has not been decided.

Related article: Labcorp’s $2,287,455 Settlement With 44 Attorneys General Over the AMCA Data Breach, What It Requires, Whether Patients Can Claim and How It Differs From the $35 Million Settlement

What Standard Does a Federal Judge Use for a Motion to Dismiss?

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court asks whether the complaint pleads enough facts to make its claims plausible (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). Fraud claims must also meet Rule 9(b), which requires the circumstances of the fraud to be stated with particularity. A lender can argue that the state did not plead specific facts about what that lender itself said or did. The court looks only at the complaint, assumes its facts are true and asks whether they state a legal claim.

What Does a Motion to Dismiss Mean for Michigan Climax Solar Customers?

If the judge grants the motion, the order may dismiss some claims and let others proceed, and the court may allow the state to amend its complaint. If the judge denies it, the case generally moves on to discovery, depositions, more motions and settlement talks.

Even if one lender leaves the case, the state’s claims against every other defendant would continue. Each financing company may have a different role in originating, holding, servicing or enforcing the solar loans. A dismissal also would not mean every Climax-related loan is valid or every homeowner’s complaint is unfounded.

Which Laws Are Involved in Michigan’s Climax Solar Lawsuit?

What Does the Consumer Financial Protection Act Cover in the Climax Solar Case?

The Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531 and 5536, prohibits unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices involving consumer financial products and services. Section 5552 lets state attorneys general enforce it. The state alleges the defendants took part in a financing structure involving misleading sales, disputed loan formation, undisclosed charges and continued collection after complaints, including liability for knowingly or recklessly providing substantial assistance to others’ violations.

What Does the Michigan Consumer Protection Act Cover?

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq., prohibits specified unfair, unconscionable or deceptive practices in trade or commerce. The Attorney General can sue under MCL 445.905, and individual consumers generally have a private right of action under MCL 445.911 for actual damages or a statutory minimum amount, plus attorney fees. The complaint alleges deceptive claims about energy savings, tax credits, installation, financing costs and cancellation rights.

What Does the Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act Cover?

The Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act, MCL 445.111 et seq., sets requirements for certain sales made at a consumer’s home, including written agreements and notice of the right to cancel. The state alleges that some Climax transactions lacked compliant agreements or clear cancellation notices and that work or financing began before the cancellation period ended. The complaint alleges that defective notices may have affected homeowners’ ability to cancel and unwind the associated loans and security interests. Whether a particular contract qualifies for cancellation depends on its facts.

Do Federal Truth in Lending and Door-to-Door Sales Rules Apply?

The Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) and Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. Part 1026) require lenders to disclose the finance charge, annual percentage rate and total of payments. Lenders commonly rely on these disclosures as a defense. For loans secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling, TILA’s rescission right (15 U.S.C. § 1635) can apply, so check whether your loan was secured by your home. The FTC’s Cooling-Off Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 429) gives a three-day right to cancel for many door-to-door sales.

What Is the FTC Holder Rule for Solar Loans?

The FTC Holder Rule (16 C.F.R. § 433.2) requires many consumer credit contracts used to finance a seller’s goods or services to state that the holder of the loan is subject to all claims and defenses the buyer could assert against the seller, generally limited to the amount the consumer paid. Whether it applies, and in what amount, depends on the loan agreement, the lender’s relationship to the seller and the facts. A lender’s argument that it is separate from the installer is often tested against this rule.

What Do the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Electronic Signature Laws Cover?

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2, requires companies that furnish information to credit bureaus to report accurately and to investigate consumer disputes. That matters because the state seeks corrections to credit reporting. The federal E-SIGN Act (15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq.) and Michigan’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (MCL 450.831 et seq.) govern electronic signatures. The state alleges signing and consent problems, so these laws are part of the background.

What Fraud and Unjust Enrichment Claims Did Michigan Bring?

The complaint also alleges common-law fraud and unjust enrichment. Fraud requires materially misleading statements or omissions that meet the legal elements. Unjust enrichment asks whether a party should be allowed to keep a benefit when doing so would be inequitable. An allegation is not proof, and the state must establish each element.

What Relief Is Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel Seeking for Climax Solar Customers?

According to the complaint and the Attorney General’s announcement, the requested remedies include:

• Restitution and other monetary relief where authorized
• Cancellation, rescission, reduction or revision of qualifying loans
• Refunds, account credits and account-status corrections
• Corrections to credit reporting, including deletion of adverse information where appropriate
• Release of liens or Uniform Commercial Code security filings where warranted
• Injunctive orders limiting unlawful collection or enforcement practices
• Civil penalties where the law authorizes them

These are requested remedies, not relief the court has ordered. The complaint asks for account-by-account relief based on the facts and available legal authority, so it does not promise that all loans will be canceled, all payments refunded or all credit entries removed. Outcomes may vary with the financing arrangement, the system’s status and who currently holds or services the loan.

Why Is This Not a Class Action?

The state is suing as a public enforcer on behalf of the people of Michigan, not as a private class representative. The complaint says the state is not seeking certification of a Rule 23 damages class. The Supreme Court held in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 571 U.S. 161 (2014), that a state attorney general’s parens patriae suit is not a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act. For homeowners, this means no settlement administrator, opt-out deadline or class claim form exists, and a complaint to the Attorney General does not make you a party to the federal case. You may still have your own legal options, subject to deadlines and contract terms.

What Should Michigan Homeowners Do If They Bought Solar Panels From Climax Solar?

You do not need to wait for the case to end before reporting problems. The state invites Michigan residents who entered Climax Solar contracts and believe they were deceived to contact its Consumer Protection Team.

Step 1: Submit a Complaint to the Michigan Attorney General

Use the official Michigan Attorney General consumer complaint form or contact the Consumer Protection Team:

• Telephone: 517-335-7599
• Toll-free: 877-765-8388
• Mail: Consumer Protection Team, P.O. Box 30213, Lansing, MI 48909

A complaint lets the state review your experience. It does not guarantee inclusion in any repayment program or establish a right to compensation.

Step 2: Preserve Your Climax Solar Contracts and Financing Documents

Keep copies of:

• The solar purchase agreement and loan agreement
• Electronic-signature records and cancellation notices
• Sales brochures, projected savings calculations and statements about tax credits
• Installation invoices, permits, inspection results and utility permission-to-operate records
• Emails, texts and letters with the installer, lender or loan servicer
• Monthly loan statements and utility bills
• Credit reports and collection notices that relate to the loan
• Photographs of incomplete or damaged work

Step 3: Dispute Specific Loan or Credit Reporting Problems in Writing

If a balance, charge or credit entry looks wrong, write to the current loan servicer, explain the disputed item and keep a dated copy with any response. You can also dispute inaccurate credit entries with the credit bureaus. If the loan was transferred, verify who now owns or services it before sending sensitive documents.

The lawsuit does not automatically suspend every loan or stop collection. Filing an Attorney General complaint does not cancel a loan or pause required payments. If you face disputed debt or imminent collection, get advice about your contract and available protections.

Step 4: Check for Liens and Unresolved Installation Problems

Review county property records and your financing documents for recorded liens or security interests tied to your system. The lawsuit asks the court to order releases where justified, but filing it does not remove a lien. If an installation was never finished, failed inspection or was never approved to operate, keep the records and do not assume the system is legally operational. You can also check whether your installer held the contractor license Michigan requires for the work.

For other consumer-finance cases with their own claim processes, see The Money Source Robocall Settlement, Check If You Qualify — Natasha Hiller v. The Money Source, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00235-PHX-JJT and Gen Digital TCPA Lawsuit, LifeLock & Norton Robocall Settlement, Claim 200–625 From Gen Digital’s $9.95M TCPA Payout. Those are separate cases with different eligibility rules and deadlines and do not apply to the Michigan enforcement action.

What Happens Next in the Michigan Climax Solar Lawsuit?

The next steps depend on how the federal court handles the reported dismissal request and on the defendants’ responses to the complaint. The court may order further briefing, grant or deny the motion in whole or in part, or issue another procedural order. No hearing date or ruling was verified. Meanwhile, the case continues to center on the state’s allegations that Climax Solar and its financing partners used deceptive sales and financing practices and that loans stayed in collection despite unresolved installation problems. If the court ultimately orders account-level remedies, qualifying homeowners could benefit, but those outcomes are not guaranteed.

Key Dates in the Michigan Climax Solar Lawsuit

Date	Event
2024	Climax Solar ceased operating following bankruptcy proceedings, according to the state’s filing and announcement
July 15, 2026	Attorney General Nessel filed the enforcement complaint in federal court and announced it, describing about 1,700 consumers and roughly $81 million in financing
October 19, 2026	News report describes a financing defendant seeking dismissal
October 20, 2026	Research cutoff; no ruling on the motion verified

No consumer claim deadline, settlement approval hearing or claims-administration schedule exists for this government enforcement case.

Frequently Asked Questions About Michigan’s Climax Solar Lawsuit

What is the Michigan Climax Solar lawsuit about?

The state alleges that Climax Solar, its owner and financing companies took part in deceptive residential solar sales and financing practices affecting about 1,700 Michigan consumers. The complaint identifies 1,689 financed transactions totaling $81,264,080.19.

Which lender is trying to dismiss Michigan’s $81 million solar fraud lawsuit?

An October 19 report describes a solar financing defendant seeking dismissal, but its identity is not confirmed in the public court materials reviewed. The complaint names eight financing defendants.

Has the judge dismissed the Michigan Climax Solar lawsuit?

No dismissal ruling was verified as of October 20, 2026. A motion to dismiss is a request for a decision, not the decision.

Can Michigan homeowners receive compensation from the Climax Solar case?

The state seeks restitution, loan cancellation or revision, refunds, credits and credit-reporting corrections. These are requested remedies, not an approved fund, and no claim form or payout schedule has been announced.

How can a Climax Solar customer report suspected fraud?

Contact the Michigan Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Team at 517-335-7599, toll-free at 877-765-8388, or use the official online complaint form.

Should Climax Solar customers stop paying their loans?

The lawsuit does not automatically suspend any loan or collection action. Preserve your records, dispute specific errors in writing and get advice about your loan agreement before deciding how to handle payments.

Is the Michigan Climax Solar case a class action?

No. The complaint says the state is bringing a public-enforcement action and is not seeking certification of a Rule 23 damages class.

Official Sources and Court Records

1. Michigan Department of Attorney General, July 15, 2026: “AG Nessel Files Lawsuit Against Solar Company, Financial Institutions for Alleged Deceptive Scheme.” Read the official release
2. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, July 15, 2026: People of the State of Michigan v. Orbit Marketing, LLC, et al., No. 1:26-cv-02084, Complaint, ECF No. 1 (77 pages). Read the original complaint
3. Official federal court docket: Case No. 1:26-cv-02084, the primary source for any motion, briefing, hearing date or ruling. Access the federal docket
4. Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536 and 5552.
5. Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.901 et seq., and Michigan Home Solicitation Sales Act, MCL 445.111 et seq., as cited in the complaint.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The Climax Solar lawsuit contains allegations that no final judgment has resolved. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Michigan Attorney General’s July 15, 2026 announcement and the original complaint (ECF No. 1, Case No. 1:26-cv-02084, W.D. Mich.), as of October 20, 2026. Last Updated: October 20, 2026.