Mutual of Omaha disputes the allegations
In its response, Mutual of Omaha includes all statements about the mortgage industry and the allegations against it, specifically seeking to deny any unconstitutionality stated in the complaint.
Regarding the allegations specifically, the company acknowledges that it owns the companies and websites in question – Review Advisor, LLC again The Advisory Institute, LLC – but he disputes Longbridge’s interpretation that their performance and content constitute consumer manipulation.
Mutual of Omaha also said the Retirement Income Solutions (RFS) logo is the DBA that uses it, that RFS operates out of the same office as the main company and that the materials published on its website are approved by the marketing staff of Mutual of Omaha, but it denies Longbridge’s allegations that the site “exists only. the aim is to engage consumers in Mutual products and to reverse the false narrative on the Review Counsel and Advisory Institute websites that RFS is one of Mutual of Oma.”
Mutual also denies that the foreclosure process is hurting older homeowners who may be looking for a loan. It contends that the sites’ operation “damages competitors” in the reverse mortgage industry, and that its sites “damage” Longbridge’s reputation by not including it in other rankings represented on one of the websites or by “directing” consumers to Mutual “based on false and misleading claims,” as Longbridge said in its complaint. .
Mutual also disputes Longbridge’s description of RFS as “inoperative,” saying it “operates as a trade name of Mutual of Omaha and is separately licensed and disclosed as a trade name on the NMLS in all states where licensing and disclosure of trade names is required.”
Claims against Longbridge
In its response, Mutual of Omaha made several claims against Longbridge that it intentionally interfered with Mutual of Omaha’s business relationships by targeting the company’s nationwide presence. Google search ecosystem, and that Longbridge violated the same RESPA provisions that Mutual accuses of violating.
“Longbridge made a deliberate attempt to interfere [Mutual’s] marketing and business development, in an effort to disrupt [Mutual’s] the business is also unfairly self-serving,” the file continued. “With knowledge and belief, this program involves submitting anonymous complaints [Mutual]Google, trade associations, and regulators.”
Anonymous complaints to Google, Mutual says, “constitute intentional interference.” The company also says that “Longbridge itself advertises on websites that violate the very provisions of RESPA it has accused. [Mutual] of violation. Such actions constitute unlawful and unfair competition under California law. “
In its counterclaim, Mutual says it received an anonymous complaint in early 2023 via email that “contains allegations identical in wording and substance to the complaint filed by Longbridge in this case,” including material.
Meanwhile, Mutual says it received a complaint from an unnamed trade association raising similar allegations. The source was not identified by the association, but Mutual says it “subsequently identified Longbridge as the source of the complaint.” The following spring, the company says it received a complaint from the Washington State The department of Financial Institutions from the submission of the same anonymous email address as the 2023 complaint.
The Washington regulator “investigated the allegations, found no violations, and closed the investigation without action on May 14, 2024,” Mutual said. “In at least one Washington State complaint, Longbridge or its agent clearly misrepresented itself as a buyer when filing a complaint with a state regulator,” the company said.
Suspicious search suspension, next steps
Mutual also alleges that Longbridge made or directed complaints to Google, which ultimately caused the Review Counsel website and others owned by Mutual to disappear from Google search results for four months.
“When Google was suspended [Mutual’s] other websites due to a complaint received, [Mutual] lost the ability to reach a large portion of consumers through the RC website,” the company said. “As a result, Mutual of Omaha started a few loan transactions.”
Mutual also countered that Longbridge’s advertising practices, including appearing on multiple loan comparison websites, showed it as a “top-rated lender” meaning “Longbridge was selected as a top lender based on principle, rather than payment-based” for placement, the company said.
One of the sites in question stated that “compensation affects the location, order, and quantity of products presented,” Mutual said.
As of Wednesday evening, Longbridge had not responded to Mutual’s filing. A previous filing indicated that both companies may be trying to reach a settlement. When each was initially contacted about the lawsuit when the original complaint was filed, Longbridge declined to comment, while Mutual of Omaha said it does not comment on litigation.
Source link
