Mutual Of Omaha Denies Longbridge Allegations, Files Counterclaim

Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, which rose to the No. 1 position on the reverse mortgage industry leaderboard for Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) endorsements in 2024, has responded to a September legal complaint by competitor Longbridge Financial. Mutual is denying allegations that it misled potential customers and is demanding a jury trial and for litigation to determine the monetary losses inflicted upon it by Longbridge’s alleged activities.

At the end of September, Longbridge filed suit against Mutual of Omaha alleging these websites are both deceptive and in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) as well as guidance from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). But Mutual of Omaha has also issued its own counterclaim against Longbridge in its response, according to court documents reviewed by HousingWire’s Reverse Mortgage Daily (RMD).

Mutual of Omaha disputes allegations

In its response, Mutual of Omaha exhaustively combs through both statements about the reverse mortgage industry and the allegations against it, largely seeking to refute anything in conflict with the laws cited in the complaint.

In regard to the allegations directly, the company admits to its ownership of one of the companies and websites at issue — Review Counsel, LLC — but disputes Longbridge’s characterization that its operations and content constituted deception of consumers.

Mutual of Omaha also said that the Retirement Funding Solutions (RFS) brand is a DBA it uses, that RFS operates out of the same office as the primary company and that materials published on its website are authored by Mutual of Omaha marketing staff, but denies Longbridge’s allegation that the site “exists for the sole purpose of funneling consumers to Mutual’s products and backstopping the false narrative on the Review Counsel and Advisory Institute websites that RFS is an alternative to Mutual of Omaha.”

Mutual also denies that the operation of the site inflicts harm on older homeowners who may be seeking a reverse mortgage. It disputes that the operation of the site “damages competitors” in the reverse mortgage industry, and that its site “damage[d]” Longbridge’s reputation by not including it in some of the rankings represented or “steering” consumers to Mutual “based on false and misleading representations,” as Longbridge alleged in its complaint.

Mutual also denies Longbridge’s characterization of RFS as “defunct,” saying it “operates as a tradename of Mutual of Omaha and is separately licensed and disclosed as a tradename in the NMLS for all states in which licensing and disclosure of tradenames is required.”

Counterclaims against Longbridge

In its response, Mutual of Omaha makes several counterclaims against Longbridge that allege intentional interference with Mutual of Omaha’s business relationships by targeting the company’s presence across the Google search ecosystem, and that Longbridge has violated the same RESPA provisions it accuses Mutual of violating.

“Longbridge is engaging in a targeted effort to interfere with [Mutual’s] marketing and business development, in an attempt to disrupt [Mutual’s] business and unfairly favor itself,” the filing reads. “Upon information and belief, this scheme has involved sending anonymous complaints to [Mutual], Google, trade associations, and regulators.”

Anonymous complaints to Google, Mutual says, “constitute intentional interference.” The company further alleges that “Longbridge itself advertises on websites that violate the very provisions of RESPA that it has accused [Mutual] of violating. 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 which “contained a number of allegations that are identical in wording and substance to the complaint Longbridge filed in this case,” including visual materials.

That summer, Mutual says it received a complaint from an unspecified trade association raising many of the same allegations. The source was not revealed by the association, but Mutual claims it “subsequently learned that Longbridge was the source of the complaint.” The following spring, the company says it received a complaint from the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions stemming from a submission by the same anonymous email address as the 2023 complaint.

The Washington regulator “investigated the allegations, found no regulatory violations, and closed its investigation without action on May 14, 2024,” Mutual said. “In at least the Washington State complaint, Longbridge or its agent evidently posed (falsely) as a consumer when lodging the complaint with a government regulator,” the company alleges.

Alleged search suspension, next steps

Mutual also claims that Longbridge either itself made or directed complaints to be made to Google, which ultimately caused the Review Counsel website and others owned by Mutual to disappear from Google search results for a period of about four months.

“During the time when Google suspended [Mutual’s] other websites as a result of the complaint received, [Mutual] lost the ability to reach a substantial portion of consumers through the RC website,” the company said. “Consequently, Mutual of Omaha originated fewer loan transactions.”

Mutual also contends that Longbridge’s own advertising practices, including appearances on multiple mortgage comparison websites, has been displayed as the “highest-ranked lender” which “implies that Longbridge has been selected as the best mortgage company based on objective criteria, rather than based on paying” for placement on them, the company alleges.

One of the sites in question stated that “compensation impacts the location, order, and score of the brands presented,” Mutual alleges.

As of Wednesday evening, Longbridge had not responded to Mutual’s filing. A prior filing indicated that both companies may be attempting to reach a settlement. When each company was initially contacted about the lawsuit at the time the original complaint was filed, Longbridge declined to comment, while Mutual of Omaha said it does not comment on pending litigation.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that Mutual of Omaha admitted to ownership of Advisory Institute, LLC, but this was not correct.