Attyx lied about its solar systems.

They Came to His Door and Took Everything

Elmer Cruz is 65 years old. He lives in Rockaway, New York. He had just retired. Within months of leaving work, two men came to his home and made him a promise: a new solar system for $28,520, payments of only $167 a month, a completely free roof replacement, and a $6,000 cash bonus just for agreeing. His electricity bills would shrink or disappear entirely. The government had programs for this. Space was limited. He needed to decide.

He did not sign anything. He said yes verbally, based on what two salesmen told him face-to-face in his own living room.

What came next was not a solar system. It was $100,300 in debt. Two separate loans from two companies he had never agreed to borrow from: one for $50,300 with Solar Mosaic, and one for $50,000 with Service Finance Company, billed as payment for the roof he was told was free. His signature on those loan agreements was not his. The complaint alleges Attyx salespeople generated the electronic contracts on their own devices and fraudulently affixed his signature without his knowledge.

The solar system was installed. It underperformed. His utility bills did not drop. He now pays for both the system and the electricity it was supposed to replace. The $6,000 cash incentive never arrived. The tax credits he was promised turned out to be nonrefundable credits that only help people who owe significant federal income taxes. He was retired. He was on a fixed income. He likely owed little or nothing. The credits were functionally worthless to him, and the complaint alleges Attyx knew this and sold to him anyway.

When he realized what had happened and tried to contact Attyx, they stopped taking his calls.

Mosaic, meanwhile, placed a lien on his home: a UCC-1 financing statement filed against his property in the New York City real estate records without his authorization. He did not consent to a security agreement. He did not sign one. The lien remains on the record to this day.

Elmer Cruz is one man. The complaint estimates there are at least 10,000 people like him. The New York Attorney General received over 200 complaints about Attyx before filing its own parallel lawsuit. The scheme, as described in the complaint, was not a series of mistakes. It was a scripted operation with preprinted lies, pre-arranged lending partners, and a business model designed to get paid before anyone figured out what had happened.

Straight From the Court Documents

These are direct quotes from the class action complaint filed April 27, 2026 in the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:26-cv-02494) and from the regulatory orders it cites.

“Attyx forged Plaintiff’s signature on an electronically generated sales agreement and two separate lending agreements without Mr. Cruz’s knowledge or assent.”
— Complaint ¶ 3

“Mosaic’s dealer fee is an unlawful, undisclosed finance charge under state and federal law which both increased the total amount loaned to Plaintiff with no corresponding benefit or notice, and deprived Plaintiff of the ability to negotiate better terms.”
— Complaint ¶ 38

“Mosaic’s agreement with Attyx referred to loan surcharges as ‘Dealer’s Points’ and stated, ‘Dealer agrees to accept the Loan Amount, minus the applicable Dealer’s Points . . . (the “Net Loan Amount”) in full satisfaction of the amount owed by the applicable Customer.’ The agreement was dated February 14, 2020 and was signed by Attyx co-CEO Young.”
— Complaint ¶ 114

“Payne repeatedly referred to the Loan Surcharges as a ‘kickback’ collected by Attyx’s lending partners, including Mosaic and WebBank.”
— Complaint ¶ 103, citing NY AG Complaint ¶ 233

“The NYPSC found in its November 2025 Final Order that Attyx’s practice of ‘advertising products and services as “no cost” that have associated costs is inherently problematic and misleading.’ The NYPSC further found Attyx ‘engag[ing] in misleading or deceptive conduct’ and by ‘mak[ing] false or misleading representations including misrepresenting rates or savings offered.'”
— Complaint ¶ 76, quoting NYPSC Final Order (Ex. B)

What They Said vs. What They Did

Attyx’s marketing and sales scripts made specific, documented promises. Every core promise had a documented reality that directly contradicted it.

• Claim: “Get a $0 out-of-pocket new roof installed by bundling with solar!” Attyx published this language directly on its website. Reality: A $50,000 loan through Service Finance was secretly opened in consumers’ names to pay for the roof. There was no government program covering it. There was no charity. Attyx was billing consumers for the work while telling them it was free.
• Claim: “New York has unlocked millions of dollars of funding for programs like this to upgrade your home.” Attyx ads cited “the Roof Rescue Program” and the “Inflation Reduction Act” as covering new roofs for New York homeowners. Reality: The complaint states explicitly that “there was no government program called the ‘Roof Rescue Program’ that provided consumers with free roofs.” The Inflation Reduction Act does not cover free residential roofs for homeowners through solar installers.
• Claim: Attyx told consumers that solar tax credits would provide “money back” from the government to help pay for the system. Reality: The federal Residential Clean Energy Credit and the New York Solar Energy System Equipment Credit are both nonrefundable tax credits. They reduce what you owe in taxes; they do not generate a refund check. For lower-income and retired consumers who owe little or no federal income tax, these credits are worth nothing.
• Claim: Monthly costs would not exceed $167 per month. Reality: Consumers were enrolled in multi-thousand-dollar loans with monthly payments far exceeding $167, and those payments increased over time when consumers could not make lump-sum prepayments (which Attyx had falsely implied would come from tax refunds).
• Claim: The solar system would significantly reduce or eliminate monthly electric utility bills. Reality: The complaint states that Elmer Cruz’s solar system underperformed and failed to reduce his electricity bills, leaving him paying for both the system and his full utility costs simultaneously.
• Claim: Attyx was helping consumers access “government programs” and “navigate” available funding. Reality: Attyx was a private, profit-motivated business. It was not a navigator for government benefit programs. It was a solar and roofing company that used the language of government programs to make its own financing scheme sound like public assistance.

The Machine Was Designed to Pay Itself Before Anyone Noticed

The complaint documents a financial structure built around one objective: ensure all parties in the scheme got paid before consumers could understand what had happened or exercise any right to cancel.

• Attyx’s sales agreements contained “substantial project completion” clauses that defined completion as merely installing the major hardware components: racking, solar modules, and inverters. The solar system did not need to generate electricity, pass code inspection, or connect to the grid for Attyx to claim completion and trigger payment from its lending partners.
• If consumers failed to sign a Notice of Completion within five days of this minimal threshold, the contracts gave Attyx the power to sign on the consumer’s behalf as their irrevocable agent. This clause effectively eliminated any ability to withhold sign-off pending actual, verified performance.
• Mosaic and WebBank paid Attyx from loan proceeds before the work was genuinely complete. This meant Attyx was already paid and effectively out of the deal by the time consumers discovered problems with system performance or unexpected loan obligations.
• Dealer fees ranging from 9% to 54% of the total system cost were collected by Mosaic and WebBank as undisclosed surcharges, passed to consumers through inflated “Amount Financed” totals. The higher the dealer fee charged, the lower the stated APR appeared, making the loan seem more attractive to consumers while concealing its true cost.
• The complaint documents that Attyx charged cash customers lower prices than financed customers. The difference between the cash price and the loan price absorbed the lender’s dealer fee, meaning loan customers effectively paid an invisible premium that existed solely to subsidize the lender’s fee structure.
• The New York Attorney General estimates that the total damages from this scheme in New York alone amount to approximately $275,000,000.

The Dealer Fee Scam, Explained

Mosaic and WebBank structured their fee collection in a way specifically designed to be invisible to consumers. Here is the documented mechanics of how it functioned.

• Mosaic and WebBank agreed in writing with Attyx that Attyx would receive the “Net Loan Amount” — the loan total minus the dealer fee. This meant Attyx received only the system price while Mosaic kept the difference as profit, funded entirely by the consumer’s loan balance without the consumer knowing.
• Mosaic and WebBank deliberately structured disclosures so the fee appeared as part of the “Amount Financed” rather than in the “Finance Charge” box. This misrepresented the true APR, making loans appear cheaper than they were.
• The complaint states that a consumer offered a seemingly low 3.99% APR could simultaneously be charged an undisclosed loan surcharge representing over 30% of the system cost, negating much of the benefit of the low rate.
• Cash-paying customers were charged less than loan customers. This price difference proves the fee was consumer-borne, not Attyx-borne, exposing the “Dealer’s Points” framing as, per the complaint, “a ruse, concocted in an attempt to avoid liability.”

How the Rules Were Bent Without Breaking (On Paper)

Several elements of Attyx’s scheme operated in documented gaps between what regulators required and what enforcement actually caught.

• The FTC Holder Rule (16 C.F.R. § 433) is supposed to protect consumers by allowing them to assert claims against whoever holds their loan that they could have asserted against the original seller. However, the complaint documents that Mosaic, WebBank, and Service Finance structured their arrangements with Attyx in ways that created distance between the lender’s actions and the seller’s fraud, complicating the consumer’s ability to quickly identify and challenge the full scheme. The complaint invokes the Holder Rule as a legal remedy precisely because this gap existed.
• Electronic signature platforms gave Attyx salespeople the technical ability to generate loan documents and input signatures from devices they controlled, without any separate authentication step requiring physical presence or independent consumer action. No mechanism existed to verify that the person whose name appeared on the contract had actually reviewed or signed it voluntarily.
• Mosaic’s “substantial project completion” clause exploited ambiguity in what “completion” means under contract law. By contractually defining completion as the installation of three hardware components — racking, modules, and inverter — Attyx could trigger loan disbursement while the system was non-functional, non-code-compliant, and unconnected to the electrical grid. Regulators had not yet closed this definition gap.
• The complaint notes that NYSERDA specifically notified Young and Payne in April 2021 that they were required to segregate solar costs from non-solar costs in their sales agreements. Despite this direct, documented notice, Attyx continued bundling roof and HVAC costs into a single “System Cost” figure for years. Receiving a regulatory notice did not carry any immediate enforcement consequence that deterred continued noncompliance.
• Non-refundable tax credit misrepresentation existed in a gap between consumer protection law and tax law. Attyx’s claims that credits provided “money back” were technically distinguishable from outright fabrication to regulators focused on disclosure mechanics; however, the economic effect on lower-income consumers who owed little or no tax was identical to fraud.