FTC and Arizona: Solar Xchange and its owner face a $13.8 million partly suspended penalty over solar telemarketing
In July 2023 the FTC and the Arizona Attorney General sued Vision Solar LLC, Solar Xchange LLC (also doing business as Energy Exchange) and Solar Xchange's owner, Mark Getts. The complaint alleged tens of millions of calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, callers who falsely claimed affiliation with a utility or government agency, and misstated energy-bill savings. Solar Xchange and Getts agreed to a proposed order with a $13.8 million civil penalty, partially suspended.
- Year
- 2023
- Where
- United States
- Outcome
- Settled
- Victims
- Not stated in the sources
- Schemes
- Home solar sales fraud
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-19
The facts, as recorded
- The FTC announced the case on July 18, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona; Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced a parallel action on July 27, 2023.
- Claims cited: the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Telephone Solicitations Act.
- The FTC said Energy Exchange placed tens of millions of calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry, and thousands of consumers reported dozens of calls each.
- The allegations include callers falsely claiming a utility or government affiliation, misrepresenting savings, and telling consumers that payments would replace their electric bills.
- The proposed settlement with Solar Xchange and Getts carries a $13.8 million partially suspended civil penalty and bans misrepresenting an affiliation with a utility or government agency, unsubstantiated installation-cost claims and abusive telemarketing.
- The sources cited describe the settlement terms for Solar Xchange and Getts only; they do not state the outcome for Vision Solar LLC.
- Arizona Attorney General Mayes: 'I will not tolerate dishonest sales practices or harassment through unwanted calls.'
Why this case matters
This is the lead-generation end of the scheme: the sale starts with a phone call, not a doorstep. The allegation is that callers borrowed the authority of a utility or government agency to get a foot in the door, then oversold the savings, with the financing arriving later.
Delays that cost twice
Arizona’s release adds one detail worth noting: alleged installation delays meant customers were paying for solar financing while still paying their existing utility bills.
Vision Solar in two cases
Vision Solar LLC is also the name of the company in Connecticut’s 2024 judgment. The sources cited here do not state that these are the same entity, so this site treats them as two separate cases.
The caveat
The civil penalty is stated as part of a proposed settlement order; the FTC and Arizona described the conduct as allegations, and a settlement of this kind is not an adjudicated finding. The penalty is partially suspended, so the amount actually payable is lower than the headline figure. Nothing here addresses criminal liability.
Sources
- FTC, Law Enforcers Nationwide Announce Enforcement Sweep to Stem the Tide of Illegal Telemarketing Calls to U.S. Consumers. Federal Trade Commission. Accessed 2026-09-19. Supports: The July 18, 2023 announcement, the defendants, the call volume, the allegations, the $13.8 million partially suspended penalty and the conduct bans.
- Attorney General Mayes Sues Residential Solar Installation Company and Telemarketer Over Unsubstantiated Savings Claims and Illegal Phone Calls. Office of the Arizona Attorney General. Accessed 2026-09-19. Supports: The July 27, 2023 date, statutes cited, savings and rebate misrepresentations, the utility-impersonation and installation-delay allegations, and the Mayes quote.