The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (Bus. & Com. Code §§ 17.41–17.63) is the primary legal route for a Texas homeowner who was misled into a residential solar agreement. A consumer who prevails recovers economic damages plus court costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees, and where the defendant acted knowingly, the trier of fact may award up to three times economic damages.
The fee-shifting provision is what makes an individual solar claim economically viable. Without it, the cost of pursuing a $50,000 contract dispute would exceed what most homeowners could justify.
A DTPA claim is one route among several. For the full set, see how to cancel a Texas solar contract.
Not legal advice. This site is not a law firm and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether you have a DTPA claim depends on facts only a licensed Texas attorney can evaluate.
What does the DTPA prohibit?
Section 17.46(b) contains what practitioners call the “laundry list” — an enumerated set of false, misleading, or deceptive acts. A consumer may also bring claims for breach of warranty and for unconscionable action or course of action under § 17.50(a).
Laundry-list items that recur in residential solar matters include representing that goods or services have characteristics, uses, or benefits they do not have; representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations it does not have; advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised; representing that a transaction involves an affiliation, connection, or sponsorship that does not exist; and failing to disclose information about goods or services that was known at the time of the transaction, where the failure to disclose was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction they would not have entered had the information been disclosed.
That last item — § 17.46(b)(24) — is often the strongest in a solar case, because much of the harm comes from what was never said rather than what was falsely stated.
How does this apply to Texas solar specifically?
Four categories of representation come up repeatedly in the Texas complaint record, and each has a Texas-specific evidentiary angle.
Savings and bill elimination. Claims that the system would eliminate the electric bill, or that the solar payment would replace the utility payment. In Texas this is unusually provable, because Texas has no statewide net metering mandate. Roughly 85% of the state sits in the deregulated ERCOT market where export compensation is a voluntary Retail Electric Provider product, and credits typically offset supply charges only — TDU delivery charges and base fees remain payable. A projection built on retail-rate export credit was not achievable at that address under the rules that applied. See [Texas has no net metering].
Tax credit representations. Claims that the federal credit was automatic, guaranteed, or would be applied for you. The Section 25D residential credit was repealed by P.L. 119-21 for expenditures made after December 31, 2025. The OAG’s petition against CAM Solar specifically alleges misrepresented tax-credit eligibility. See [the solar tax credit expired].
Government or utility affiliation. Claims implying a government program or utility partnership. Effective September 1, 2026, § 1806.201(2) prohibits falsely stating or implying affiliation with a public utility or government agency when engaging in residential solar retail. The FTC has also warned the industry about deceptive government-affiliation claims.
Payment amount. A stated monthly payment that turned out to be materially different — commonly because a loan was written with a low introductory payment premised on a tax credit paydown that never happened. See [why your payment jumped].
Where the misrepresentation centers on financing, see Texas solar loan cancellation. For agreements generally, see solar cancellation help for Texas homeowners.
What is “knowingly” and why does it matter?
Under § 17.50(b)(1), if the trier of fact finds the conduct was committed knowingly, the consumer may recover damages for mental anguish and the trier of fact may award not more than three times the amount of economic damages. If the conduct was committed intentionally, the trebling may extend to mental anguish damages as well.
“Knowingly” generally means actual awareness of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of the act — awareness that may be inferred where objective manifestations indicate the person acted with actual awareness.
This is why documentation of what was actually said matters so much. A pattern — the same script, the same claims, across many homeowners, after the company had notice of complaints — is the kind of evidence that speaks to actual awareness. It is also why the Texas AG’s active investigation is relevant to individual claims: it establishes that companies had notice.
Who counts as a “consumer”?
The DTPA protects a “consumer,” defined in § 17.45(4) as an individual, partnership, corporation, this state, or a subdivision or agency of this state who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services. Consumer status is a threshold requirement — a plaintiff who is not a consumer as to the defendant cannot bring a DTPA claim.
For a homeowner who purchased or leased a residential solar system, this is usually straightforward. It gets more complicated with respect to a lender who financed rather than sold, which is one reason claims against installers and claims against lenders often proceed on different theories.
Waiver is void. Section 17.42 makes any waiver of DTPA rights void and unenforceable as against public policy, with narrow exceptions where the consumer was represented by counsel and the waiver was negotiated and conspicuously signed. A contract clause purporting to waive DTPA claims is generally unenforceable.
The 60-day notice requirement
Section 17.505 requires the consumer to give the defendant written notice at least 60 days before filing suit, advising in reasonable detail of the specific complaint and the amount of economic damages, damages for mental anguish, and expenses including attorney’s fees reasonably incurred.
Two mechanics matter:
Settlement offers. The business may make a written settlement offer during the notice period. Under § 17.5052, if the consumer rejects an offer the court later finds was made in good faith and substantially the same as the damages found at trial, recovery may be limited to the amount of that offer plus reasonable fees through the offer date. Rejecting a reasonable offer carries a real cost.
Exceptions. Under § 17.505(b), notice is not required where giving it is rendered impracticable because suit must be filed to prevent limitations from expiring, or where the claim is asserted by counterclaim. Failure to give notice where required is generally addressed by abatement rather than dismissal — but abatement costs time, and time is the scarce resource.
Because the notice must be sent and the period must run before suit, the practical deadline for a DTPA claim is roughly 60 days earlier than the limitations date.
How long do I have?
Two years. Section 17.565 provides that a DTPA action must be commenced within two years after the date the false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice occurred, or within two years after the consumer discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the occurrence.
The period may be extended by 180 days where the plaintiff proves the failure to timely commence was caused by the defendant knowingly engaging in conduct solely calculated to induce the plaintiff to refrain from or postpone commencing the action.
Discovery is the pivotal question in solar cases, because the harm often surfaces long after signing — when the payment jumps at re-amortization, when the first full summer bill arrives, when a title search during a home sale turns up a UCC filing. See [deadlines on Texas solar claims].
What can I recover?
- Economic damages — the total loss attributable to the wrongful act, which may include out-of-pocket loss, benefit-of-the-bargain damages, and consequential damages.
- Mental anguish damages where the conduct was knowing.
- Up to treble economic damages where the conduct was knowing (§ 17.50(b)(1)).
- Court costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees for a prevailing consumer (§ 17.50(d)).
- Orders necessary to restore money or property acquired by the prohibited conduct.
- Injunctive relief.
Note that § 1806.207 gives TDLR a separate administrative route to order cancellation and refund — and § 1806.207(e) preserves the right to bring a court action for other damages. The two tracks are not mutually exclusive.
Does the DTPA apply to solar retailers specifically?
Yes, and Chapter 1806 says so directly. Section 1806.153 requires a solar retailer and solar salesperson to comply with Subchapter E, Chapter 17 (the DTPA) and with Chapter 115 as if they were a seller or lessor under that chapter, and with the Truth in Lending Act and applicable state financial-transaction law.
Section 1806.152(b) makes a solar retailer responsible for violations committed by any solar salesperson authorized to act on its behalf. The common response that the salesperson no longer works there does not resolve the company’s exposure.
What documentation matters most?
Your written account of what was said. Write it now. Specific statements about the monthly payment, the savings, the tax credit, government programs, and urgency — the actual words, with dates and the salesperson’s name where you have it. This is the single highest-value thing you can do today.
The gap between representation and reality, quantified. Promised payment versus actual payment, times months elapsed. Projected production versus actual production. Projected bill versus actual bill. The DTPA requires economic damages, and § 17.505 requires you to state an amount in the notice.
The disclosure documents Texas already required. Chapter 115 has required written disclosure since September 1, 2021 of the salesperson and installer contact information, the equipment description, the cost of all equipment, a detailed accounting of fees, any representations regarding expected operational and financial performance, and all applicable warranties — with additional disclosures for leases (§ 115.004) and PPAs (§ 115.005). If you never received these, that absence is itself the evidence.
Your TILA disclosures, compared line by line against what you were told verbally.
DTPA claims are brought statewide. Homeowners in CenterPoint territory can start at solar cancellation in Houston; those served by El Paso Electric, which operates outside ERCOT entirely, should see El Paso solar cancellation.
Free legal review
DTPA claims are not self-help matters. The notice requirements, consumer-status questions, and limitations analysis all require a licensed Texas attorney. We connect Texas homeowners with qualified Texas firms for a free review. We are a marketing and intake service and do not provide legal advice.
See if you may be eligible for a free legal review →
Sources: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 17.42, 17.45, 17.46, 17.50, 17.505, 17.5052, 17.565, Ch. 115; Tex. Occ. Code §§ 1806.152, 1806.153, 1806.201, 1806.207; P.L. 119-21; Texas OAG press releases April 6, 2026 and May 2026.