1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division

ARUN G. RAO

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division

AMANDA N. LISKAMM

Director

RACHAEL L. DOUD

Assistant Director

COLEEN SCHOCH

NICOLE FRAZER

Trial Attorneys

Consumer Protection Branch

Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice

450 5th Street, NW, Suite 6400-South

Washington, DC 20044-0386

Telephone: (202) 305-7386

Facsimile: (202) 514-8742

Email: Nicole.Frazer@usdoj.gov Email: Coleen.Schoch@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

KRISTIN K. MAYES 

Attorney General 

(Firm State Bar No. 14000) 

LAURA DILWEG (BAR NO. 036066) JOSEPH HUBBLE (BAR NO. 037113) Assistant Attorneys General 

Office of the Attorney General 

2005 North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-1592 

Telephone: (602) 542-7753 

Telephone: (602) 542-8766 

Facsimile: (602) 542-4377 

Email: Consumer@azag.gov Email: Laura.Dilweg@azag.gov Email: Joseph.Hubble@azag.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Arizona 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

 United States of America, and 

No. _________________ State of Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes, 

Attorney General, 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

 Plaintiffs, INJUNCTION, CIVIL PENALTIES, 

 v. AND OTHER RELIEF AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 21 
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Vision Solar LLC, a limited liability 

company, 

Solar Xchange LLC, a limited liability 

company, also d/b/a Energy Exchange, and 

Mark Getts, individually and as an officer of 

Solar Xchange LLC, 

Defendants. 

Plaintiffs, the United States of America, acting upon notification and authorization 

to the Attorney General by the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”),

pursuant to Section 16(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15

U.S.C. § 56(a)(1), and the State of Arizona, ex rel. Kristin K. Mayes, Attorney General, 

for their Complaint allege: 

1. The United States brings this action under Sections 5(a), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b),

16(a), and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a),

45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 56(a), and 57b, and Section 6 of the Telemarketing and Consumer 

Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 6105, to obtain a

permanent injunction, monetary civil penalties, and other relief for Defendants’ acts or

practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the FTC’s

Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), as amended, 16 C.F.R. Part 310.

2. The State of Arizona, by and through its Attorney General, Kristin K.

Mayes, brings this action pursuant to the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (“ACFA”),

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 44-1521 to 44-1534, and the Arizona Telephone 

Solicitation Act (“ATSA”), A.R.S. §§ 44-1271 to 44-1282, to obtain permanent 

injunctions, civil penalties, and other equitable relief, and reimbursement of costs and 

attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ acts or practices.

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 21 
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

SUMMARY OF CASE 

3. Defendant Vision Solar LLC (“Vision Solar”) sells residential solar panels

and installation services to consumers. To generate leads for its sales, Vision Solar pays 

telemarketers to call consumers and persuade them to schedule an appointment for an athome consultation with a Vision Solar salesperson. Vision Solar pays its telemarketers 

fees based on the number of appointments its salespeople attend with potential customers. 

4. Defendant Solar Xchange LLC (“Solar Xchange”) is one of the leading

telemarketers that develops leads for Vision Solar’s home solar panels and installation

services by initiating outbound telephone calls to consumers. Solar Xchange obtains 

consumers’ telephone numbers from third-party lead generators and then calls those 

consumers for the purpose of scheduling appointments with Vision Solar salespeople at 

their homes. Solar Xchange’s telemarketing agents often falsely tell consumers that their

company (which they sometimes identify as “Energy Exchange”) is affiliated with an 

electric utility company or government entity. Solar Xchange and Vision Solar also 

make false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims regarding the benefits that consumers 

will receive by installing and using solar panels at their homes, telling them, among other 

things, that they will save between 20% and 50% off their current energy bills by 

installing Vision Solar’s panels, that their monthly payment for solar panels will replace 

their current utility bill, and that they will accrue savings from the first month. 

5. Since at least 2019, Vision Solar’s telemarketers, including Solar Xchange,

have placed tens of millions of calls to phone numbers on the National Do Not Call 

Registry maintained by the FTC (the “Do Not Call Registry” or “Registry”). Over 

150,000 consumers have been called at least 50 times, and over 12,000 consumers have 

been called at least 100 times. Some consumers have also continued to receive 

telemarketing calls from telemarketers on behalf of Vision Solar despite previously 

requesting that they no longer receive such calls. These calls violate Section 5 of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and the TSR, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, and such calls placed to 

Arizona consumers violate the ATSA and the ACFA. 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 3 of 21 
4 

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

1337(a), 1345, and 1355. 

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the State of Arizona’s claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (c)(2),

1395(a), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). Defendants transact business in this District. 

DEFENDANTS 

9. Defendant Vision Solar LLC (“Vision Solar”) is a Pennsylvania limited

liability company with its principal place of business at 501 East Black Horse Pike, 

Blackwood, New Jersey 08012. Vision Solar sells residential solar panels and 

installation services to consumers, mostly through in-person sales presentations at 

consumers’ homes. Vision Solar pays telemarketers to generate leads and schedule

appointments with potential customers. Vision Solar currently operates its business in 

Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas. 

Vision Solar transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the 

United States. 

10. Defendant Solar Xchange LLC, also doing business as Energy Exchange

(“Solar Xchange”), is a New Jersey limited liability company with its principal place of

business at 214 Cherry Street, Voorhees, New Jersey 08043. Solar Xchange is one of the 

telemarketers that Vision Solar pays to generate consumer leads and schedule 

appointments with potential customers at their homes. Solar Xchange transacts or has 

transacted business in this District and throughout the United States. 

11. Defendant Mark Getts (“Getts”) is the sole owner and Chief Executive

Officer of Solar Xchange and is a resident of Pennsylvania. At all times relevant to this 

Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, 

had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of Solar Xchange, 

including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. Among other things, Getts 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 4 of 21 
5 

1 wrote the scripts used by Solar Xchange’s telemarketers, purchased telephone numbers

2 from third-party lead generators, oversaw contracts with telephone service providers, and 

3 managed Solar Xchange’s finances and bank accounts. Defendant Getts, in connection

4 with the matters alleged herein, transacts or has transacted business in this District and 

5 throughout the United States. 

6 COMMERCE 

7 12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a 

8 substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section

9 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

10 THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

11 AND THE NATIONAL DO NOT CALL REGISTRY 

12 13. In 1994, Congress directed the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting abusive 

13 and deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the Telemarketing Act, 15 

14 U.S.C. §§ 6101–6108. The FTC adopted the original TSR in 1995, extensively amended 

15 it in 2003, and amended certain sections thereafter. 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

16 14. Among other things, the 2003 amendments to the TSR established the Do 

17 Not Call Registry, maintained by the Commission, of consumers who do not wish to 

18 receive certain types of telemarketing calls. Consumers can register their telephone 

19 numbers on the Registry without charge either through a toll-free telephone call or over 

20 the Internet at donotcall.gov. 

21 15. Consumers who receive telemarketing calls to their registered numbers can 

22 complain of Registry violations the same way they registered, through a toll-free 

23 telephone call or over the Internet at donotcall.gov, or by otherwise contacting law 

24 enforcement authorities. 

25 16. The TSR defines “telemarketing” as a plan, program, or campaign which is 

26 conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use 

27 of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. 16 

28 C.F.R. § 310.2(gg). 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 5 of 21 
6 

1 17. Under the TSR, a “telemarketer” is any person who, in connection with

2 telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a customer or donor. 16 

3 C.F.R. § 310.2(ff). 

4 18. Under the TSR, a “seller” is any person who, in connection with a

5 telemarketing transaction, provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide 

6 goods or services to the customer in exchange for consideration. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(dd). 

7 19. The FTC allows sellers, telemarketers, and other permitted organizations to 

8 access the Registry over the Internet at telemarketing.donotcall.gov, to pay any required 

9 fee(s), and to download the numbers not to call. 

10 20. Under the TSR, an “outbound telephone call” means a telephone call

11 initiated by a telemarketer to induce the purchase of goods or services or to solicit a 

12 charitable contribution. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(x). 

13 21. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating an outbound 

14 telephone call to numbers on the Registry unless the seller or telemarketer can 

15 demonstrate that the seller (1) has obtained the consumer’s express agreement, in writing, 

16 to place such calls, or (2) has an established business relationship with that consumer, and 

17 the consumer has not stated that he or she does not wish to receive such calls. 16 C.F.R. 

18 § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). Valid written consent to receive a live telemarketing call to a 

19 number on the Registry requires: (i) a writing signed by the consumer, (ii) clearly 

20 evidencing authorization to receive calls placed on behalf of a specific seller, and 

21 (iii) stating the phone number to which such calls may be placed. Id.

22 § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1). An established business relationship means a relationship 

23 between a seller and a consumer based on (1) the consumer’s purchase, rental, or lease of

24 the seller’s goods or services or a financial transaction between the consumer and the 

25 seller, within the eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the telemarketing 

26 call; or (2) the consumer’s inquiry or application regarding a product or service offered

27 by the seller, within the three months immediately preceding the date of the telemarketing 

28 call. Id. § 310.2(q). 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 6 of 21 
1 22. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating any outbound 

2 telephone call to a person when that person has stated that he or she does not wish to 

3 receive an outbound telephone call made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or 

4 services are being offered or made by or on behalf of the charitable organization for 

5 which a charitable contribution is being solicited. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A). 

6 23. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from causing any telephone to 

7 ring, or engaging any person in telephone conversation, repeatedly or continuously with 

8 intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number. 16 C.F.R. 

9 § 310.4(b)(1)(i). 

10 24. The TSR also prohibits a person from providing “substantial assistance or

11 support” to any seller or telemarketer when that person “knows or consciously avoids

12 knowing” that the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any act or practice that violates

13 Sections 310.3(a), (c) or (d) or Section 310.4 of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 

14 25. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6102(c), 

15 and Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of the TSR 

16 constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in violation of 

17 Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and shall be treated as a violation of a 

18 rule regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices pursuant to Section 18 of the FTC Act, 

19 15 U.S.C. § 57a. 

20 ARIZONA’S TELEPHONE SOLICITATION ACT 

21 26. The ATSA governs telephone solicitations to or from numbers in Arizona. 

22 27. The ATSA defines “seller” as a person who directly, or through a solicitor,

23 among other things, “[i]nitiates telephone calls to provide or arrange to provide

24 merchandise to consumers in exchange for payment.” See A.R.S. § 44-1271(15). 

25 28. A “solicitor” is a “person, other than a seller or employee of a seller, who

26 uses a telephone to seek sales or rentals of merchandise on behalf of a seller or uses a 

27 telephone to verify sales or rentals for a seller.” A.R.S. § 44-1271(16). 

28 

7 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 7 of 21 
1 29. A “telephone solicitation” is any “voice communication from a live

2 operator, announcing device or otherwise that offers merchandise for sale or rent and that 

3 is to or from a person located in [Arizona].” A.R.S. § 44-1271(18). 

4 30. The State of Arizona takes telephone solicitations seriously—so much so 

5 that the legislature explicitly clarified that any violations of the ATSA also are a violation 

6 of the ACFA. See A.R.S. § 44-1278(C). Among other things, the ATSA seeks to protect 

7 consumers from repeated and unwanted sales calls. 

8 31. To that end, the ATSA requires businesses to honor “do not call” requests.

9 Specifically, A.R.S. § 44-1278(B)(2) makes it unlawful for a seller or anyone acting on 

10 their behalf to make a call to any person who “has previously stated a desire not to 

11 receive outbound telephone calls made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or 

12 services are being offered.”

13 32. Exceptions to A.R.S. § 44-1278(B)(2) are narrow. The statute imposes 

14 strict compliance requirements in order to prevent repeated unwanted calls. Under 

15 A.R.S. § 44-1278(B)(2), a seller or solicitor escapes liability only if all of the following 

16 apply: 

17 a. “The seller or solicitor has established and implemented written

18 procedures to comply with this paragraph [A.R.S. § 44-1278(B)(2)].”

19 b. “The seller or solicitor has trained the seller’s or solicitor’s

20 personnel according to the written procedures prescribed in subdivision (a) of this 

21 paragraph.”

22 c. “The seller or the solicitor acting on behalf of the seller establishes

23 and maintains a no call list comprised of all persons who request not to be contacted and 

24 keeps all do not call requests for at least ten years.”

25 d. “The initial outbound call or any subsequent outbound call made by

26 the seller or the solicitor is the result of an error.”

27 33. Arizona law similarly protects consumers who opt to be placed on the 

28 National Do Not Call Registry. In 2003, the state legislature amended the ATSA and 

8 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 8 of 21 
9 

1 explicitly clarified that calling individuals on the Registry is a violation of the ATSA and 

2 the ACFA. See A.R.S. § 44-1282(B). 

3 DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

4 34. Vision Solar is a “seller,” and Solar Xchange is a “telemarketer,” who are

5 engaged in “telemarketing” as those terms are defined in the TSR. Vision Solar is a 

6 “seller,” and Solar Xchange is a “solicitor,” as those terms are defined in the ATSA. 

7 35. Solar Xchange and other telemarketers paid by Vision Solar initiated 

8 outbound telephone calls to consumers throughout the United States to induce the 

9 purchase of solar panels and installation services from Vision Solar. 

10 36. Defendants are engaged in telemarketing by a plan, program, or campaign 

11 conducted to induce the purchase of residential solar energy systems by the use of one or 

12 more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call. 

13 37. During these telemarketing calls, Solar Xchange asks consumers scripted 

14 questions to assess their interest in and eligibility for a home solar energy system. If the 

15 consumer expresses interest and meets the eligibility requirements, Solar Xchange 

16 schedules an appointment with the consumer for an at-home consultation. Solar Xchange 

17 then forwards that consumer’s appointment information to Vision Solar, which sends a

18 salesperson to the consumer’s home at the appointed time. Vision Solar pays Solar

19 Xchange for each appointment that its salespeople attend with consumers, regardless of 

20 whether the consumers ultimately purchase solar panels from Vision Solar. Solar 

21 Xchange schedules appointments exclusively for Vision Solar. 

22 38. During these telemarketing calls, Solar Xchange often identifies itself as 

23 “Energy Exchange” because it has learned that consumers often hang up when they first

24 hear the word “solar.”

25 39. In many instances, Solar Xchange falsely tells consumers that it is affiliated 

26 with a government program or electric utility company. For example, Solar Xchange 

27 may tell consumers that they are required to call the consumer due to a state mandate or 

28 that they are working in partnership with the local utility company. 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 9 of 21 
10 

1 40. Solar Xchange also makes various false or unsubstantiated representations 

2 about how consumers can save money on their electric bills by installing solar panels on 

3 their homes with no money down, such as telling consumers their monthly payment for 

4 solar panels replaces their current electric bill and provides a fixed rate that is up to 30% 

5 lower than their current electric bills. 

6 41. Solar Xchange typically does not identify Vision Solar as the entity that 

7 will be providing the at-home consultation. In fact, Vision Solar has stated that its 

8 telemarketers are not permitted to use Vision Solar’s name when scheduling

9 appointments with consumers. 

10 42. Vision Solar also makes various false or unsubstantiated representations 

11 during at-home sales pitches about how consumers will benefit by installing and using 

12 solar panels from Vision Solar, often telling consumers they will save an average of 20-

13 40% compared to their current electric bills and that they will start seeing savings 

14 immediately. Vision Solar also makes false or unsubstantiated representations to 

15 consumers about the installation process, available tax credits and rebates, and other 

16 terms and conditions relating to the sale and use of solar panels. 

17 43. In fact, in numerous instances, consumers have had to wait several months 

18 after signing a contract with Vision Solar to get their solar panels installed and 

19 operational, during which time they are required to pay fees for the solar panels as well as 

20 their existing utility for electricity. Additionally, Vision Solar and Solar Xchange lack 

21 substantiation for their cost savings claims. 

22 44. Since at least 2019 and as part of their campaign to market residential solar 

23 energy systems, Vision Solar’s telemarketers, including Solar Xchange, have initiated 

24 tens of millions of outbound telemarketing calls to the phone numbers of consumers 

25 whose phone numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry. 

26 45. For millions of these consumers whose telephone numbers were on the Do 

27 Not Call Registry and who received these telemarketing calls, Vision Solar, its 

28 telemarketers, including Solar Xchange, and their third-party lead generators did not have 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 10 of 21 
11 

1 evidence of an established business relationship with Vision Solar, nor did they have 

2 evidence that the consumer had given express written consent to receive telemarketing 

3 calls made on behalf of Vision Solar. 

4 46. In many instances, consumers who received telemarketing calls from Solar 

5 Xchange requested that they no longer receive such calls, yet Solar Xchange continued to 

6 call them on behalf of Vision Solar. In some instances, Solar Xchange made rude or 

7 harassing comments to consumers who asked not to be called. 

8 47. Vision Solar’s telemarketers, including Solar Xchange, also have made 

9 thousands of telephone calls that caused telephones to ring, or engaged people in 

10 telephone conversations, repeatedly or continuously. For example, Vision Solar’s

11 telemarketers called at least 150,000 different phone numbers over 50 times, and they 

12 called at least 12,000 phone numbers over 100 times. Many of these consumers received 

13 multiple calls almost every day for one or more months, with some consumers regularly 

14 receiving 5 or more calls per day. Defendants made these calls with the intent to annoy, 

15 abuse, or harass any person at the called number. 

16 48. Vision Solar caused its telemarketers, including Solar Xchange, to engage 

17 in these abusive telemarketing acts or practices or, alternatively, provided substantial 

18 assistance to its telemarketers including by continuing to use and pay for their services 

19 that Vision Solar knew or consciously avoided knowing were violating the TSR. 

20 49. Vision Solar and Solar Xchange are both aware of their obligations with 

21 respect to the Do Not Call Registry and the TSR. Among other things: 

22 a. Vision Solar’s contracts with Solar Xchange require Solar Xchange

23 to comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and all regulations

24 promulgated thereunder, which mirror the provisions in the TSR prohibiting calls to 

25 persons whose numbers are on the Do Not Call Registry. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. 

26 b. Solar Xchange’s contract with Five9, Inc., one of its telephone 

27 service providers, required Solar Xchange to comply with all federal, state, and/or local 

28 laws in connection with its use of telephone services, including compliance with the TSR 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 11 of 21 
12 

1 and the Do Not Call Registry. Defendant Getts has corresponded directly with Five9, 

2 Inc., about Solar Xchange’s obligations and its compliance with FTC rules, including the 

3 TSR. 

4 c. Solar Xchange submitted some—but not all—of the telephone 

5 numbers it called to a third-party compliance firm for comparison against various 

6 registries, including the Do Not Call Registry. 

7 50. Defendants also have been sued numerous times by consumers for placing 

8 unsolicited or abusive telemarketing calls. For example, in Smith v. Vision Solar LLC, 

9 Case No. 2:20-cv-2825 (E.D. Pa. filed May 6, 2020), the plaintiffs alleged they had 

10 received calls from telemarketers on behalf of Vision Solar despite having their numbers 

11 listed on the Do Not Call Registry. In Zelma v. Vision Solar LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv12 20595 (D.N.J. removed Dec. 30, 2020), the plaintiff alleged that he had received calls 

13 from or on behalf of Solar Xchange (named as Solar Xchange, Inc.) and/or Vision Solar 

14 despite having his numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry. Vision Solar, Solar 

15 Xchange (named as Solar Xchange, Inc.), and Getts each were named defendants in the 

16 Zelma lawsuit. In Doane v. Vision Solar LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11285 (D. Mass. 

17 removed Aug. 5, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that he had received calls from telemarketers 

18 (including Solar Xchange and “Energy Exchange”) on behalf of Vision Solar despite

19 having his number listed on the Do Not Call Registry. 

20 51. Defendants’ conduct is ongoing. Between August 30, 2021, and June 16, 

21 2022, Solar Xchange continued to place more than 50 percent of its calls on behalf of 

22 Vision Solar to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry. And consumers whose numbers 

23 are listed on the Do Not Call Registry continue to complain about unsolicited phone calls 

24 from Solar Xchange and Vision Solar. 

25 52. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, 

26 Plaintiffs have reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about to violate laws 

27 enforced by the Commission and the Arizona Attorney General because, among other 

28 things: Defendants engaged in their unlawful acts and practices repeatedly over a period 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 12 of 21 
13 

1 of several years; Defendants continue their unlawful acts or practices despite knowledge 

2 of government investigations and private lawsuits related to their conduct; Defendants 

3 remain in business and maintain the means, ability, and incentive to resume their 

4 unlawful conduct. 

5 VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

6 (By the United States of America) 

7 53. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or

8 deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”

9 54. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute 

10 deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

11 Count I – Misrepresentations of Affiliation 

12 (Solar Xchange and Getts) 

13 55. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

14 promotion, offering for sale, or sale of solar panels and installation services, Defendants 

15 Solar Xchange and Getts have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

16 implication, that Solar Xchange is affiliated with a government entity or utility company. 

17 56. In truth and in fact, Solar Xchange is not affiliated with a government entity 

18 or any utility company. 

19 57. Therefore, Defendants Solar Xchange and Getts’s representations as set

20 forth in Paragraph 55 are false, misleading, and constitute deceptive acts or practices in 

21 violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

22 Count II –Deceptive Claims Regarding Solar Panels 

23 (All Defendants) 

24 58. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, 

25 promotion, offering for sale, or sale of solar panels and installation services, Defendants 

26 have made representations, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, regarding 

27 the benefits that consumers will receive by installing and using solar panels and the terms 

28 and conditions that will apply to the sale and use of solar panels. Such representations 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 13 of 21 
14 

1 include, but are not limited to, claims: that installation will happen along a particular 

2 timeframe; that specific tax incentives and rebates will apply to the purchase; and that 

3 consumers will realize specified savings from solar panels, such as that the monthly 

4 payment for solar panels will replace their current electric utility bill, that the monthly 

5 payments on average will be 20-40% less than their current electric bills, and that they 

6 will begin to realize savings immediately. 

7 59. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made 

8 the representations set forth in Paragraph 58, the representations were false or misleading 

9 or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

10 60. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 58 

11 constitutes a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 

12 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

13 VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

14 (By the United States of America) 

15 Count III – Calls to Persons Registered on the Do Not Call Registry 

16 (All Defendants) 

17 61. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants have 

18 engaged, or caused a telemarketer to engage, in initiating an outbound telephone call to a 

19 person’s telephone number on the Do Not Call Registry in violation of the TSR, 16

20 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). 

21 Count IV – Repeated or Continuous Calls 

22 (All Defendants) 

23 62. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants have 

24 engaged, or caused a telemarketer to engage, in causing telephones to ring, or have 

25 engaged persons in telephone conversations, repeatedly or continuously with intent to 

26 annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number, in violation of the TSR, 16 

27 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(i). 

28 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 14 of 21 
1 Count V – Failure to Honor Do Not Call Requests 

2 (All Defendants) 

3 63. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, Defendants have 

4 engaged, or caused a telemarketer to engage, in initiating an outbound telephone call to a 

5 person who previously has stated that he or she does not wish to receive an outbound 

6 telephone call made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or services are being 

7 offered, in violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A). 

8 Count VI – Assisting and Facilitating Violations of the TSR 

9 (Vision Solar) 

10 64. Defendant Vision Solar has provided substantial assistance or support to 

11 Solar Xchange, a telemarketer, whom Defendant Vision Solar knew or consciously 

12 avoided knowing was engaged in conduct that violated § 310.4 of the TSR, including by 

13 continuing to use and pay for its telemarketing services. 

14 65. Defendant Vision Solar’s substantial assistance or support as set forth in 

15 Paragraph 64 violates the TSR, 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(b). 

16 VIOLATIONS OF THE ARIZONA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT 

17 (By the State of Arizona) 

18 66. The ACFA makes it unlawful for any person to use “any deception,

19 deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, 

20 or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely 

21 on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or 

22 advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, 

23 deceived or damaged thereby.” A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). 

24 67. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants acted willfully as 

25 defined in A.R.S. § 44-1531. 

26 Count VII – Misrepresentations of Affiliation 

27 (Solar Xchange and Getts) 

28 

15 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 15 of 21 
1 68. As described above, in connection with the sale or advertisement of solar 

2 panels and installation services, Defendants Solar Xchange and Getts have represented, 

3 directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Solar Xchange is affiliated with a 

4 government entity or utility company. 

5 69. In truth, Solar Xchange is not affiliated with a government entity or any 

6 utility company. 

7 70. Defendant Solar Xchange also has identified itself to consumers as “Energy

8 Exchange.” Solar Xchange has stated that it does this because consumers are less likely

9 to hang up if they do not hear the term “solar.”

10 71. Defendants Solar Xchange and Getts’s representations as set forth in 

11 Paragraphs 68 and 70 are false, misleading, and constitute deceptive acts or practices in 

12 violation of the ACFA, A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). 

13 Count VIII – Omissions of Affiliation 

14 (All Defendants) 

15 72. At the direction of Vision Solar, Solar Xchange refuses to identify to 

16 consumers for whom they are setting appointments. 

17 73. Defendants’ omissions as set forth in Paragraph 72 are material, 

18 misleading, and made with the intent that consumers rely on these omissions in violation 

19 of the ACFA, A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). 

20 Count IX – Deceptive Claims Regarding Solar Panels 

21 (All Defendants) 

22 74. In numerous instances in connection with the sale or advertisement of solar 

23 panels and installation services, Defendants make representations, directly or indirectly, 

24 expressly or by implication, regarding the benefits that consumers will receive by 

25 installing and using solar panels and the terms and conditions that will apply to the sale 

26 and use of solar panels. Such representations include, but are not limited to, claims 

27 regarding the installation process; claims regarding available tax incentives and rebates; 

28 and claims regarding the savings that consumers will realize from solar panels, including 

16 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 16 of 21 
17 

1 claims that the monthly payment for solar panels will replace their current electric utility 

2 bill, that the monthly payments will be on average 20-40% less than their current electric 

3 bills, and that they will begin to realize savings immediately. 

4 75. In truth and in fact, in numerous instances in which Defendants have made

5 the representations set forth in Paragraph 74, the representations were false or misleading 

6 or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 

7 76. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 74 are

8 deceptive and/or unfair acts or practices in violation of the ACFA, A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). 

9 77. In addition, in many circumstances, substantiation of the representations

10 described in Paragraph 74 is required under A.R.S. §§ 44-1763(B) and (C). Therefore, 

11 failure to provide such substantiation is a material omission under A.R.S. § 44-1522(A). 

12 VIOLATIONS OF THE ARIZONA TELEPHONE SOLICITATIONS ACT 

13 (By the State of Arizona) 

14 78. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1278(C), any violation of the ATSA is also a

15 violation of the ACFA, A.R.S. § 44-1522. 

16 79. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1278(B) of the ATSA, it is unlawful for a seller or

17 solicitor or anyone acting on behalf of a seller or solicitor to initiate an outbound 

18 telephone call to any Arizona consumers except as provided in 16 C.F.R. § 310.4. Such 

19 violations constitute per se violations of the ACFA, pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1278(C). 

20 80. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1282(A) of the ATSA, it is unlawful for a seller or

21 solicitor or anyone acting on behalf of a seller or solicitor to initiate an outbound 

22 telephone call to any Arizona consumers whose numbers were registered on the Do Not 

23 Call Registry without the express written consent of a consumer. These violations of the 

24 ATSA constitute per se violations of the ACFA, pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1282(B). 

25 81. Vision Solar is a “seller,” and Solar Xchange is a “solicitor,” for purposes

26 of the ATSA. See A.R.S. §§ 44-1271(15), 44-1271(16). 

27 Count X – Failure to Honor Do Not Call Requests 

28 (All Defendants) 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 17 of 21 
1 82. Defendants, directly or through a third party on their behalf, made outbound 

2 telephonic solicitations to Arizona consumers after the solicited consumers had stated their 

3 desire not to receive such telephone calls and without complying with the safe harbor of 

4 A.R.S. § 44-1278(B)(2)(a-d). 

5 83. Defendants’ acts or practices alleged in Paragraph 82 above constitute per 

6 se violations of the ACFA, pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1278(B). 

7 Count XI – Calls to Arizona Consumers on the Do Not Call Registry 

8 (All Defendants) 

9 84. Defendants, directly or through a third party acting on their behalf, initiated 

10 outbound telephone solicitations to Arizona consumers whose telephone numbers were 

11 registered on the Do Not Call Registry without being able to demonstrate that they had 

12 obtained the express agreement, in writing, of such persons. 

13 85. Defendants’ acts or practices alleged in Paragraph 84 above constitute 

14 violations of A.R.S. § 44-1282(A). 

15 86. These violations constitute per se violations of the ACFA, A.R.S. § 44-

16 1522(A), pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1282(B)-(C). 

17 CONSUMER INJURY 

18 87. Consumers in the United States have suffered and will continue to suffer 

19 substantial injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and

20 the TSR, as well as the ACFA. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are 

21 likely to continue to injure consumers and harm the public interest. 

22 THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF

23 88. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to 

24 grant injunctive and other ancillary relief to prevent and remedy any violation of any 

25 provision of law enforced by the FTC. 

26 89. Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A), as modified 

27 by Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 

28 § 2461, as amended, and as implemented by 16 C.F.R. § 1.98(d), authorizes this Court to 

18 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 18 of 21 
19 

1 award monetary civil penalties of up to $50,120 for each violation of the TSR, 16 C.F.R. 

2 § 1.98(d). Defendants’ violations of the TSR were committed with the knowledge

3 required by Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). 

4 90. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to

5 allow Plaintiff State of Arizona to enforce its state law claims against Defendants in this 

6 Court for violations of the ACFA, and to grant such relief as provided under state law, 

7 including injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, costs and attorneys’ fees, and such

8 other relief to which the State of Arizona may be entitled. 

9 91. This Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary

10 relief to remedy injury caused by Defendants’ violations of the TSR and the FTC Act.

11 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

12 Wherefore, Plaintiff United States of America, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the 

13 FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), and Section 4(b) of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 15 

14 U.S.C. § 6102(c); and Plaintiff State of Arizona, pursuant to the Arizona Consumer Fraud 

15 Act, Chapter 44, Article 6, request that the Court: 

16 A. Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs for each

17 violation alleged in this Complaint;

18 B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act,

19 the TSR, and the ACFA by Defendants;

20 C. Award Plaintiff United States of America monetary civil penalties from

21 each Defendant for every violation of the TSR, pursuant to 16 C.F.R.

22 § 1.98(d);

23 D. Award Plaintiff State of Arizona monetary civil penalties of up to $10,000

24 per violation per violator of the ACFA pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1531;

25 E. Award Plaintiff State of Arizona monetary civil penalties of up to $1,000

26 per violation of A.R.S. § 44-1282, per violator; and

27 F. Award Plaintiffs any additional relief as the Court may determine to be just

28 and proper.

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 19 of 21 
20 

1 Respectfully submitted this 14th day of July 2023, 

2 FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

3 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON 

4 Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Division 5 

6 ARUN G. RAO 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 7 Civil Division 

8 

AMANDA N. LISKAMM 9 Director, Consumer Protection Branch 

10 

RACHAEL L. DOUD 11 Assistant Director, Consumer Protection Branch 

12 

13 

______________________________________ 

Coleen Schoch 14 Nicole Frazer 

Trial Attorneys 15 Consumer Protection Branch

16 Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice

450 5th Street, NW, Suite 6400-South 17 Washington, DC 20044-0386

18 Telephone: (202) 305-7386

Facsimile: (202) 514-8742 19 Email: Coleen.Schoch@usdoj.gov

20 Email: Nicole.Frazer@usdoj.gov

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 20 of 21 
1 FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

2 KRISTIN K. MAYES 

Attorney General, State of Arizona 3 

4 

5 ________

6 Laura Dilwe

Joseph Hu

J 

________________________ 

g 

bble 

7 Assistant Attorneys General 

8 Office of the Attorney General 

2005 North Central Avenue 

9 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1592 

10 Telephone: (602) 542-7753 

Telephone: (602) 542-8766 

11 Facsimile: (602) 542-4377 

Email: consumer@azag.gov 12 

Email: Laura.Dilweg@azag.gov 

13 Email: Joseph.Hubble@azag.gov 

14 

OF COUNSEL: 15 

Alan Bakowski 

16 Robin Rock 

Attorneys 17 Federal Trade Commission 

233 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1000 18 (404) 656-1363; abakowski@ftc.gov

19 (404) 656-1368; rrock@ftc.gov

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

21 

Case 2:23-cv-01387-DGC Document 1 Filed 07/14/23 Page 21 of 21