Figure Lending LLC is facing two active class action lawsuits: one accusing the fintech lender of marketing home equity loans as Home Equity Lines of Credit in a “bait-and-switch” scheme, and a second stemming from a February 2026 data breach that exposed personal information belonging to roughly 967,000 customers. The HELOC case, Ward v. Figure Lending, LLC, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina and survived Figure’s motion to dismiss in September 2025.1PACER Monitor. Ward v. Figure Lending, LLC
What the HELOC Lawsuit Alleges
Plaintiff Lee Ward filed the class complaint on June 5, 2024, under Case No. 3:24-cv-00533.2ClassAction.org. Ward v. Figure Lending LLC Complaint The core allegation is that Figure calls its product a HELOC but delivers something functionally different. A standard HELOC lets borrowers draw funds as needed and pay interest only on what they use. Figure instead requires borrowers to take the full approved amount as a single lump-sum draw at closing, a structure the company’s own FAQ page confirms.3Figure. Home Equity Line FAQs The suit contends that this forces borrowers to pay maximum interest from day one and lets Figure sidestep certain disclosure rules that apply to closed-end loans.4HEL News. Figure HELOC Lawsuit
The complaint also targets Figure’s advertised rates. Borrowers say they were drawn in by teaser rates as low as 2.49% or 3%, then quoted rates nearly triple those numbers after handing over sensitive financial data. Ward alleges he was told his rate would be “far below” the 9.75% he was ultimately charged.5National Mortgage News. Figure Lending Accused of Bait-and-Switch Tactics in Suit A 2024 securitization showed a weighted-average coupon of 11.08% on Figure’s loans, against an industry average of roughly 8.5% at banks and credit unions during the same period.4HEL News. Figure HELOC Lawsuit
Other allegations include:
- An origination fee of nearly $2,400 the plaintiff calls “far higher than an industry-standard origination fee.” Ward says he would not have proceeded had he known about the charge in advance.6ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Claims Figure Lending Misled Borrowers, Misrepresented Loans as HELOCs
- Technical “glitches” during Figure’s online application that force borrowers to restart, causing them to lose previously locked rates and receive less favorable terms.2ClassAction.org. Ward v. Figure Lending LLC Complaint
- Payoff-related problems. Ward alleges Figure used an improper formula to assess excessive interest and deferred interest when he tried to pay off his loan, then sent threatening collection notices even after his account showed a zero balance.6ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Claims Figure Lending Misled Borrowers, Misrepresented Loans as HELOCs
These claims echo patterns visible in outside consumer complaints. The Better Business Bureau lists 67 complaints against Figure over a three-year period as of mid-2026, with billing issues the largest category at 30 complaints. Only 13 are marked “Resolved”; the remaining 54 are classified as “Answered” without verified resolution.7Better Business Bureau. Figure Lending BBB Complaints
A Figure spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit at the time of filing. Chief Capital Officer Todd Stevens has publicly characterized Figure’s higher rates as a premium borrowers willingly pay for speed and convenience.4HEL News. Figure HELOC Lawsuit
Who Is Covered
The complaint proposes three nationwide classes of Figure borrowers:
- Borrowers who allegedly paid inflated payoff amounts based on inaccurate data;
- Borrowers assessed improper post-closing fees; and
- Borrowers whose loans were marketed as HELOCs but governed by Arizona law.
The suit asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.4HEL News. Figure HELOC Lawsuit No class has been certified yet, so these definitions describe the group the plaintiff is asking the court to recognize, not a confirmed membership.
Where the HELOC Case Stands
An Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on August 26, 2024. Figure moved to dismiss, and on September 4, 2025, Senior Judge Frank D. Whitney denied that motion without prejudice to refiling. The case was reassigned to District Judge Matthew E. Orso on December 23, 2025.1PACER Monitor. Ward v. Figure Lending, LLC As of mid-2026, there is no indication that discovery has begun, and class certification has not been briefed or granted. Borrowers who believe they were affected cannot claim anything yet; certification is the gate that must open first.
The February 2026 Data Breach and Its Lawsuit
In February 2026, the extortion group ShinyHunters gained access to Figure’s systems through a voice phishing attack that tricked an employee into entering credentials and multi-factor authentication codes into a fraudulent portal.8Rescana. Figure Technology Solutions Data Breach After Figure refused to pay the ransom, the group published approximately 2.5 gigabytes of compressed stolen files on February 13, 2026.9PR Newswire. Privacy Alert: Figure Lending Corp Under Investigation for Data Breach
The breach affected roughly 967,000 people. Exposed data included names, email addresses, physical addresses, phone numbers, and dates of birth.10American Banker. Data Breach Hits 1 Million Figure Customers One security analysis found the dataset did not appear to contain Social Security numbers or financial data, though the initial consumer complaint alleged the breach may have included Social Security numbers and loan information.9PR Newswire. Privacy Alert: Figure Lending Corp Under Investigation for Data Breach Figure retained a forensic investigation firm and offered complimentary credit monitoring to affected individuals.
A class action complaint, Mardikian v. Figure Lending LLC (Case No. 3:26-cv-00135), was filed on February 19, 2026, in the Western District of North Carolina.11ClassAction.org. Figure Lending Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach Plaintiff George Mardikian, represented by Rhine Law Firm and Strauss Borrelli PLLC, alleged that Figure failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures and failed to timely report the breach. The complaint brings claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and common-law negligence and breach of implied contract.12Top Class Actions. Figure Lending Data Breach Class Action
The data breach matter appears to be shifting toward mass arbitration rather than continuing purely as class litigation. Attorneys at Bryson, Harris, Suciu, DeMay PLLC are gathering affected consumers to file individual arbitration claims.13ClassAction.org. Figure Technology Solutions Data Breach Customers who received a breach notification from Figure should keep that notice; it will likely be needed to prove standing in either a class or an individual arbitration claim.
What Affected Customers Should Watch
Two dates matter. For the HELOC case, class certification is the next major event, and until Judge Orso rules on it there is nothing for borrowers to opt into or claim. For the data breach case, the choice between a certified class and mass arbitration will shape how, and how much, individual customers can recover. If you took out a Figure home equity product and believe your rate, fees, or payoff amount didn’t match what you were quoted, preserve your closing documents, rate lock disclosures, payoff statements, and any communications with the company. If you received a data breach notice, save it along with the credit monitoring enrollment materials Figure provided.