Changed counterclaim
Longbridge claims that mutual and co -suspects have violated the real estate processing procedures (Respa) Act. It claims that certain assessment websites, of which a mutual possession has been made, are deceptive.
In the changed counterclaim, Mutual said in his submission that “this is in no way a response violation – of course paying to advertise, which is permitted under respa, can affect how the advertiser appears on the advertiser of a website.” But mutual also claim conditional[s]”That if Respa applies to this type of activity, the behavior of Longbridge would be a greater violation.
In contrast to the websites that Longbridge pays for the placement of the advertisement, the websites emphasize in the original complaint (Assessment advice And Advisory institute) Do not change the order in which reverse mortgage companies are displayed on their rating pages, the page on which Review Counsel and Advisory Institute assign reviews to companies, “said lawyers for Mutual.
“Instead, the rating pages mention companies alphabetically and not in order of who offers advertisements.”
Mutual lawyers give a better point on their allegations, state that “or a company advertises does not affect the rating of that company or the order in which the companies are presented on the rating pages,” is the archiving.
“On the other hand, […] Longbridge explicitly pays or at the top of the list of the ranking pages on the so -called independent external comparison websites on which Longbridge advertises. “
Suppose that Respa applies to this activity, which mutually denies, claims that Longbridge is in fact the party that has violated Respa and claims that “websites pays for improved placement on the ranking pages of other websites.”
Website placement accusations
In his legal strategy, mutual counters by quoting the same guidelines from the original complaint of Longbridge. In 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has given advice, which states that websites for mortgage comparison that offer “improved placement or otherwise support consumers” to certain operators based on compensation, contrary to Respa section 8.
In the original complaint, Longbridge claimed that one of the websites that are discussed the criteria for a ‘digital mortgage comparison platform’ meets. Mutually, this disputes this by saying: “It does not compare specific mortgages or other settlement services.”
Mutual added that “the page with assessment does not allow interaction by a consumer. That is why no part of Reviewcounel.org is ‘focused on a person’ in the way that the CFPB opinie 2023 is considering and therefore does not constitute a referral activity. “
Mutual mentions the presence of Longbridge on three different websites – Bestmoney.com, Money.com and Mortgagenderscomparison.com. Mutual claims that Longbridge paid for a higher placement “after information and faith” in violation of Respa and the cited CFPB -MENING.
Two of the websites that are raised by Mutual (Best Money and Mortgagenders Compararyon) also use the same physical address based on Delaware. Mutual said that “with information and conviction Longbridge Willens and Knowingly advertising on two websites that claim to be separate, but that are not divorced.”
The alleged placement on Money.com also gives priority to the placement of higher ranking. The lawyers claim that this is “an illegal reference under Respa because Money.com does not present neutral information in a way that influences or sends the consumer and, after information and conviction, pays longbridge for such a presentation” under the suspicion that Respa applies.
Remedies wanted, following deadlines
Mutual or Omaha asks the court to enter an order against Longbridge, “forbids it to perform unlawful and unfair behavior with regard to advertisements on websites and to submit complaints to private third parties.” It is also looking for a jury court, lawyer’s fees and interest before and after the decision on damage granted.
Longbridge has not responded to the changed counterclaim from Friday evening. It has previously submitted a motion for a provisional order to bring down material that it claims is deceptive and misleading of websites that it claims to send unfairly reverse mortgage activities to mutual. The deadline of the response is March 28.
In February a hearing date on this motion was pushed from 14 March to 14 April. An earlier submission indicated that the companies may try to reach a settlement.
Housing‘S Reverse MortGage Daily (RMD) contacted each company when the original complaint was submitted. Longbridge refused to comment, while Omaha’s mutual said it does not comment on the hanging lawsuits.
