Legal Dispute Over RESPA Allegations Between Longbridge and Mutual of Omaha
The ongoing conflict between Longbridge and Mutual of Omaha primarily revolves around allegations concerning the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Longbridge has accused Mutual and its associated defendants of engaging in deceptive practices via specific review websites, one which Mutual has acknowledged as its property.
Amended Counterclaim Highlights
In its amended counterclaim, Mutual of Omaha asserted that the actions in question do not constitute a violation of RESPA. According to Mutual, the practice of paying for advertising, which is legally permissible under RESPA, may influence how an advertiser is positioned on a website.
Conditional to RESPA’s relevance to these circumstances, Mutual contends that Longbridge’s actions are more egregious, stating that while Longbridge allegedly pays for top visibility on various platforms, the accused websites do not manipulate the presentation order of companies based on advertising payments. Instead, they list ratings alphabetically, unaffected by advertising expenditures.
Claims Regarding Advertising Transparency
Mutual’s filing emphasized a distinction in advertising practices, claiming that the ratings on the websites mentioned in Longbridge’s complaint—Review Counsel and Advisory Institute—are organized alphabetically and maintain neutrality in rating companies. They explicitly state that “whether a company advertises does not affect that company’s rating or the order in which the companies are presented on the ratings pages.”
Contrarily, Mutual alleges that Longbridge actively pays to enhance its visibility on these independent comparison websites, which they claim could potentially breach RESPA if that regulation indeed applies in this scenario.
Website Placement Disputes
Mutual’s counter-strategy involves referencing guidance from an advisory opinion issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2023. The opinion states that mortgage comparison websites engaging in “enhanced placement” for monetary compensation could violate RESPA Section 8. In response to Longbridge’s categorization of certain sites as “digital mortgage comparison-shopping platforms,” Mutual refutes this claim, arguing that its services do not facilitate direct mortgage comparisons or consumer interactions.
Moreover, Mutual has pointed to evidence suggesting that Longbridge may be funding higher placements on platforms such as BestMoney.com, Money.com, and MortgageLendersComparison.com in a manner inconsistent with RESPA guidelines. Two of these sites reportedly share a Delaware address, leading Mutual to suggest that they may not be distinct entities as claimed by Longbridge.
Legal Remedies and Upcoming Deadlines
In terms of legal recourse, Mutual is seeking an injunction to prevent Longbridge from what it describes as unlawful advertising conduct and from submitting complaints through third-party entities. Additionally, Mutual has requested a jury trial, attorney fees, and both pre- and post-judgment interest on any awarded damages.
As of the latest developments, Longbridge has not responded to the amended counterclaim. Previously, it sought a preliminary injunction aimed at removing content it considers deceptive and that allegedly misdirects reverse mortgage business towards Mutual. The deadline for Longbridge to respond is set for March 28. A hearing regarding the motion was rescheduled from March 14 to April 14, indicating ongoing discussions related to a potential settlement between the two parties.
HousingWire’s Reverse Mortgage Daily reached out to both organizations upon the original complaint’s filing. While Longbridge declined to comment, Mutual of Omaha refrained from discussing ongoing litigation.
