Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Reverse mortgage lender obtains preliminary injunction against competitor over advertising, (May 14, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

Google ads promising information about “Top 3” reverse mortgage providers that redirected consumes to landing pages that highlighted two companies that really are the same company are problematic.

In a case between competing reverse mortgage lenders, the federal district court in San Diego has granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Longbridge Financial that prevents Mutual of Omaha Mortgage and related entities, from engaging in certain advertising. The court concluded that reverse mortgage lender Longbridge Financial will likely prevail on at least some of its claims under the Lanham Act that competitor Mutual of Omaha Mortgage engaged in false and deceptive advertising. The court concluded that Google ads promising information about “Top 3” reverse mortgage providers that redirected consumes to landing pages that highlighted two companies that are the same company are problematic (Longbridge Financial, LLC v. Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-01730-DMS-VET (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2025)).

Reverse mortgage lender Longbridge Financial, LLC (“Longbridge”) filed suit against Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc. (“Mutual of Omaha”); Review Counsel LLC; and Advisory Institute, LLC alleging claims under the Lanham Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Trade Act. Longbridge claims that Mutual of Omaha two wholly owned related entities engaged in false and deceptive advertising to drive business away from Longbridge.

Longbridge filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking an order to remove advertisement and related content from the website of Review Counsel and to refrain from publishing any further false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements, comparisons, reviews, and other content relating to reverse mortgage products on the Review Counsel website while the action is pending. After the case was filed, a disclosure page on the Review Counsel website was added that states “Review Counsel is owned and operated by Mutual of Omaha Mortgage.” Advisory Institute also added a disclosure page. The court analyzed the relevant preliminary injunction factors.

Likelihood of success. The court found that Longbridge has shown a likelihood of success on at least some of the claims under the Lanham Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Trade Act. Longbridge has carried its burden in showing that some of the statements from Mutual of Omaha and its related entities were “literally false” on their face. For example, parties agree it was incorrect for Review Counsel to state that Longbridge was not licensed in Hawaii. Review Counsel and Advisory Institute’s prior Google ads promising information about “Top 3” reverse mortgage providers are problematic because those ads redirected consumers to landing pages that highlighted Mutual of Omaha and another company—which the parties agree are the same company—as two of the three “top” providers. These literally false and misleading statements tend to mislead consumers. Thus, Longbridge met its burden of establishing that it has been or is likely to be injured because of these statements.

Irreparable injury. The court also concluded that Longbridge will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. A plaintiff seeking an injunction under the Lanham Act is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of a likelihood of success on the merits. Mutual of Omaha failed to rebut the presumption. The court rejected the argument that any harm to Longbridge has been mooted because the defendants voluntarily removed any alleged false and misleading statements on their websites, because the act may be repeated.

Balance of hardships. Next, the court found that the balance of equities favors granting an injunction. Without an injunction, Longbridge will likely suffer irreparable harm. Mutual of Omaha and related entities likely will not suffer such harm as they have no equitable interest in disseminating a false advertisement. Longbridge has established that some of past and current statements on the defendants’ websites are false and misleading.

Public interest. Finally, the court determined that the public interest factor factors granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Longbridge. The public has an interest in receiving accurate information and avoiding confusion in the marketplace. The Lanham Act was intended to protect the consuming public and competitors from false and deceiving statements which a company chooses to utilize in advertising its goods or services. Thus, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

Scope of injunction. The court granted a preliminary injunction that bars certain false and deceptive advertising while requiring certain disclosures. Mutual of Omaha and the other defendants may not advertise that Longbridge is not licensed to issue loans in any state or territory where Longbridge is licensed. Furthermore, the defendants may not advertise to consumers on sponsored Google-search links that they provide information relating to “Top 3” reverse mortgage providers when the defendants’ landing pages advertise fewer than three independent reverse mortgage providers. Review Counsel may not diminish the location, font, font size, font color, and language of its banner disclosure—which currently states that “Review Counsel is owned and operated by Mutual of Omaha Mortgage.” The court found that the cost of compliance would be minimal and did not require Longbridge to post a bond.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-01730-DMS-VET.

Judge: Sabraw, D.

Attorneys: Darren Lamaina Patrick (Bird Marella LLP) for Longbridge Financial, LLC. Alfred Dumetz Carry (Dickinson Wright PLLC) for Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc.

Companies: Longbridge Financial, LLC; Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc.

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews