Longbridge alleges that Mutual and its co-defendants violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), claiming that their ownership of certain review websites is misleading. Mutual counters that advertising, while permissible under RESPA, does not influence how companies appear on their comparison sites, which list companies alphabetically. They assert that if RESPA applies to such advertising, Longbridge itself is in breach for paying for enhanced visibility on other rankings—an assertion that shifts the focus back to Longbridge. The ongoing legal discourse highlights the complex interplay of advertising practices in the mortgage industry.
In its amended counterclaim, Mutual argues that while advertising may affect visibility, the order of reverse mortgage companies on review websites is not influenced by advertisers.
Mutual contends that Longbridge’s practice of paying for enhanced placement on comparison sites constitutes a greater RESPA violation than their own alleged actions.
Attorneys for Mutual emphasize that the ratings on the comparison sites are done alphabetically, and thus, advertising does not impact a company's rating on these platforms.
Collection
[
|
...
]