Longbridge is partly provisionally won for mutual Omaha for the time being

Dispute and ruling

In recent months, Longbridge and Mutual of Omaha have submitted information to the court, made and/or respond to various claims from the other party.

But it was only in this week that SabraW weighed to assess Longbridge to assess a provisional order. It wants to bring down material. It considers misleading and misleading of websites for which it claims to send unfair reverse mortgage activities to mutual.

Although some details of Longbridge argument were rejected by the court, he finally decided to limit future statements that can imply that Longbridge has no license to offer reverse mortgages in states that are the case.

Sabraw also ruled that mutual ‘does not’ advertise on at the same time for consumers Google-Search -Links that they provide information with regard to ‘top 3′ reverse mortgage providers’ without mentioning three independent lenders.

One of the claims made by Longbridge in the suit is that Mutual or Omaha presented Solutions for pension financing (RFS) as a separate entity in its ranking of “TOP” Reverse Mortgage Lenders on the two websites that are discussed – Assessment advice And Advisory institute. RFS was the brand that underwent the reverse mortgage arm of Mutual from Omaha.

In 2019, this division mainly moved to the mutual of Omaha name, but an RFS website is maintained by the company, said the original complaint about the court.

“Review Counsel and Advisory’s earlier Google advertisements Promising information about ‘Top 3’ reverse mortgage providers are problematic because those advertisements have diverted consumers to landing pages that emphasize the mutual of Omaha and RFS – of which the parties agree that the same company is,” wrote two of the three ‘top’ – –

“The law and the facts therefore clearly prefer the statement of Longbridge that these statements were literally incorrect on their faces.”

The judge added that Longbridge “established that the law and the facts clearly prefer her claim that assessment adviser and advice were the spotlight and recommendation of the mutual of Omaha and RFS as two separate inverted mortgage providers literally incorrect due to necessary implications.”

The judge ruled that Longbridge “supported his burden sufficiently to show that the other statements from the past, although not literally false, would probably mislead or confuse consumers.” He added that earlier disclosures on the Review Counsel website describe it as “connected” with mutual Omaha “the mutual of Omaha’s factual control and ownership of assessment adviser.”

Publication and relations

Advisory Institute is not owned by Mutual, but it was founded in January 2024 by ‘a former general lawyer of Mutual or Omaha, and is fully owned by him’, which means that the lender is ‘the only Advisory advertising partner,’ the judge said.

The disclosures have specified that the advertising compensation receives “from certain partners” who can “influence the presence and positioning of companies on the website.

But “at any time, advice has revealed that mutual Omaha paid it to advertise on the Advisory website,” the judge said. Advies has clarified its relationship with mutual updates that were made on its website in January.

“The long -term disclosure page of Advisory offers information about such a relationship, the judge said. But Longbridge has sufficiently demonstrated that the disclosures in September 2024 were ‘misleading and confusing for consumers’, especially because the lender is the only advertising partner with whom the site deals with things.

Longbridge also argued in his files that the presence of the “.org” extension to the web addresses of the sites could give the impression that the sites are non -profit entities. The judge rejected that argument.

Mutual van Omaha and the ‘current disclosures of the other defendants’ probably such an argument, the judge said. “Accordingly, the court refuses that the defendants will remove their web pages in this area.”

But the order limits the defendants of ‘Advertis[ing] RFs on their websites as if RFs were an independent inverted mortgage provider who had his own loans. ”

It also calls for an assessment advisor to maintain what is currently a prominent banner On the homepage Suppose it is ‘owned by and is managed by Mutual van Omaha mortgage’. Finally, advice can “not reduce” the clarity or visibility of disclosures, as they appeared in January.

Business reactions

Housing‘S Reverse MortGage Daily (RMD) reached several times to representatives of Mutual or Omaha prior to the publication of this story, but received neither answer nor a recognition of her requests for comments.

Trevor Chapman, a spokesperson for Longbridge, gave RMD a statement.

“We are pleased that the court has recognized the merits of our claims and has taken steps to tackle the misleading behavior we have identified,” said Chapman.

“Although we believe that most participants work with integrity, this provisional order is a positive step towards protecting consumers against misleading marketing practices and helping guaranteeing fair competition in the reverse mortgage market. We are convinced that the facts will continue to support our case as this process continues.”