Longbridge Financial Lawsuit Update: Mutual of Omaha and AARP Claims

Longbridge Financial, the New Jersey-based reverse mortgage lender, is currently tied to two legal matters. In February 2026, Longbridge reached a confidential settlement with Mutual of Omaha Mortgage that ended a false-advertising suit Longbridge itself had filed in 2024. Separately, plaintiffs’ lawyers backed by the AARP Foundation have moved to add Longbridge as a defendant in a class action alleging that reverse mortgage servicers charged Home Equity Conversion Mortgage borrowers fees prohibited by federal rules.

The False-Advertising Suit Against Mutual of Omaha

Longbridge filed suit on September 27, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc., Review Counsel LLC, and Advisory Institute, LLC.¹ The complaint accused Mutual of Omaha of running three websites — ReviewCounsel.org, AdvisoryInstitute.org, and RFSQualify.com — that were designed to look like neutral consumer-research organizations but existed to steer elderly reverse mortgage shoppers toward Mutual of Omaha and its trade name Retirement Funding Solutions (RFS).²

According to the complaint, the “.org” domains implied nonprofit status while the sites consistently ranked Mutual of Omaha and RFS as the top two providers. RFS was not a separate company, Longbridge alleged, but a “doing business as” name for Mutual of Omaha operating out of the same San Diego office. The rating criteria were said to be rigged: ReviewCounsel.org gave RFS a perfect score for having a mobile app that, per the complaint, did not function; competitors were given low scores or omitted; and one site falsely stated Longbridge was not licensed in Hawaii. Educational articles on ReviewCounsel.org were allegedly written by Mutual of Omaha’s Director of Marketing Communications with no disclosure of the connection.²

The complaint asserted three causes of action: false advertising under the federal Lanham Act, unfair business practices under California’s Business and Professions Code, and deceptive trade practices under Florida law.²

The Preliminary Injunction

On May 13, 2025, Judge Dana M. Sabraw granted Longbridge a partial preliminary injunction, finding that “the law and facts clearly favor some of Longbridge’s claims.”³ The court noted the defendants had already made voluntary changes during the litigation. Review Counsel changed its disclosure from “affiliated with” Mutual of Omaha to “owned and operated by Mutual,” dropped references to RFS as a separate entity, corrected the Hawaii licensing statement, and stopped using “Top 3 Reverse Mortgages” in Google ads. Advisory Institute added a disclosure naming Mutual of Omaha as the only company paying to advertise on the site.⁴

The order barred the defendants from:

Advertising that Longbridge is not licensed in any state where it actually holds a license.
Using “Top 3” reverse mortgage provider language in sponsored Google links when the landing pages featured fewer than three independent providers.
Advertising Retirement Funding Solutions as if it were an independent company with its own customer service lines, reviews, or ratings distinct from Mutual of Omaha.
Diminishing the disclosure language already in place on the sites.⁴

Judge Sabraw declined to order the websites taken down, ruling that the modified disclosures were enough to address consumer confusion. He also declined to enjoin the sites’ rating criteria, reasoning that the selection and weighting of rating factors are subjective judgments not actionable under the Lanham Act.⁴

The Confidential Settlement

On February 13, 2026, Longbridge and Mutual of Omaha reached a confidential settlement resolving all claims. The agreement followed what was described as other failed settlement efforts in federal court. No financial terms or other conditions were disclosed.⁵

The AARP Foundation Class Action Over Reverse Mortgage Fees

The second matter is a case Longbridge did not file but may be pulled into. Rizzati et al. v. Compu-Link Corporation et al. (Case No. 2:26-cv-00277) was filed on January 16, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York with backing from the AARP Foundation.⁶ The original defendants were Compu-Link Corporation (the servicer known as Celink), Finance of America Reverse, and Carrington Mortgage Services. Plaintiffs’ attorneys separately moved to add Longbridge as a defendant in a companion class action.⁷

The suit alleges the servicers unlawfully charged Home Equity Conversion Mortgage borrowers for four categories of fees that federal HECM rules and contracts prohibit:

The charges were often added when servicers moved to foreclose, per the complaint, and the inflated balances then drove higher interest and mortgage insurance premiums, further eroding home equity. The suit cites individual borrowers charged over $14,000 in attorneys’ fees in a state where HUD caps foreclosure attorneys’ fees at $725. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement or reversal of the charges on behalf of a nationwide class of HECM borrowers going back to 2012.⁷

Longbridge’s Response and Case Status

Trevor Chapman, Longbridge’s head of public relations, said the motion to add the company concerns “servicing practices that predate our involvement with the loan at issue.” The company denied the allegations as they relate to its own conduct and said it was reviewing the motion.⁸

The primary case has narrowed considerably. Finance of America Reverse and Carrington Mortgage Services have both been voluntarily dismissed, leaving Celink as the sole remaining original defendant.⁹ The docket for the primary case does not show the motion to add Longbridge, and whether Longbridge has been formally added as a defendant in the companion action is not clear from available records.

1
Bloomberg Tax. Mutual of Omaha Accused of Reverse Mortgage Website Deception
2
The WBK Firm. Longbridge Financial v. Mutual of Omaha Mortgage Complaint
3
HousingWire. Longbridge Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Mutual of Omaha in Deceptive Advertising Lawsuit
4
Business CCH / Vital Law. Longbridge Financial LLC v. Mutual of Omaha Mortgage Inc., Order on Preliminary Injunction
5
HousingWire. Longbridge, Mutual of Omaha Reach Settlement in Reverse Mortgage Advertising Lawsuit
6
AARP. AARP Foundation Legal Advocacy Recent Litigation Cases
7
AARP. New Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Reverse Mortgage Companies Charged Illegal Fees to Older Homeowners
8
InvestmentNews. Reverse Mortgages Class Action: Have Your Clients Been Impacted by Banned Fees
9
PACER Monitor. Rizzati et al v. Compu-Link Corporation et al