The Mariner Finance lawsuit is a federal case brought by eleven state attorneys general accusing the Maryland-based subprime lender of secretly loading consumer loans with insurance products and other add-on charges that borrowers never agreed to buy. Filed in August 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the case is still active. Tennessee became the first state to settle in May 2026, but claims from the ten other jurisdictions remain pending.
Who Sued and When
On August 16, 2022, the attorneys general of Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, and Washington filed suit against Mariner Finance, LLC (Case No. 2:22-cv-03253).1NJ Office of the Attorney General. Acting Attorney General Platkin Sues Private Equity-Run Lending Company for Deceiving Consumers In April 2024, six more states — Illinois, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin — were allowed to intervene, and a Second Amended Complaint brought the coalition to eleven.2Illinois Attorney General. Attorney General Raoul Files Lawsuit to Defend Illinois Residents From Predatory Personal Lending Company
The complaint alleges violations of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and state consumer protection laws. Mariner is a subprime installment lender with more than 480 branches across 27 states, owned by private equity firm Warburg Pincus. Warburg Pincus is named in the complaint as controlling Mariner’s board but is not itself a defendant.3Yahoo Finance. U.S. States Sue Warburg-Owned Mariner Finance
What Mariner Is Accused Of
Adding Insurance and Other Products Without Consent
The central allegation is insurance packing. According to the states, Mariner routinely added credit life insurance, disability insurance, involuntary unemployment insurance, accidental death and dismemberment coverage, and auto club memberships to loans without telling borrowers, told borrowers the products were required to get the loan, or described them as free.4Pennsylvania Attorney General. Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC In some cases, the complaint says, consumers explicitly declined the products and were charged for them anyway.
The add-ons were sold as single-premium products. The full cost was rolled into the loan principal at origination and then accrued interest at rates between 18.99% and 35.99% over the loan’s life.5GovInfo. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mariner Finance, LLC, No. 22-3253 Roughly 80% of Mariner’s loans nationwide included add-on charges, and in 2019 the company collected $121.7 million in premiums and fees for those products.6NC DOJ. Second Amended Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC
The states also allege that Mariner kept a sales commission of 21% to 75% of the net written premium on each add-on, while written disclosures stated the entire premium was paid “To Ins. Company.”4Pennsylvania Attorney General. Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC
Rushed Electronic Closings
The complaint describes closings in which loan documents of 44 or more pages were shown on a wall-mounted screen controlled by a branch employee, who scrolled through the pages at a pace that, the states say, prevented borrowers from reading the terms or noticing the add-on charges before signing.4Pennsylvania Attorney General. Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC
Live Checks and Loan Flipping
Mariner mailed unsolicited “live checks” to consumers pulled from credit bureau data. Endorsing and depositing the check created a loan. The states allege Mariner then called and emailed those borrowers to push them into visiting a branch and refinancing into a larger loan loaded with add-on products.7Pennsylvania Attorney General. Amended Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC Employees were also allegedly trained to steer delinquent borrowers into refinancing rather than into deferrals or payment plans, generating new origination fees and new add-on charges each time.4Pennsylvania Attorney General. Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC
Sales Pressure From Above
According to the complaint, corporate headquarters set aggressive add-on sales targets, employees earned bonuses for hitting them, and branch managers faced discipline or termination when their branches fell short.1NJ Office of the Attorney General. Acting Attorney General Platkin Sues Private Equity-Run Lending Company for Deceiving Consumers The Second Amended Complaint added that Mariner’s board and top executives were “directly involved” in the practices at issue.6NC DOJ. Second Amended Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC
What the Charges Cost Borrowers
The complaint pulled samples from loan files to quantify the harm. In a random sample of 36 Pennsylvania loans from December 2020, 97% of borrowers charged for add-ons said they did not know the products existed, did not know they were optional, or did not know they cost money.4Pennsylvania Attorney General. Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC In a separate 100-loan Pennsylvania sample, 75% of loans carried add-ons, adding an average of $725 in product costs and $360 in interest per loan.
New Jersey data was lower but still substantial: in a 42-loan sample, half of loans included add-ons, adding an average $267 in premiums and $207 in interest on an average cash loan of $4,667. Nationwide, as of 2020, Mariner charged an average of about $540 per loan in premiums and extra interest combined. One borrower cited in the complaint was charged $9,160 in add-on costs, including interest, on a $16,594 loan.4Pennsylvania Attorney General. Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC
How Mariner Has Responded
Mariner called the claims “meritless and misinformed” in an August 17, 2022 statement and said it would defend itself.8Mariner Finance. Mariner Finance Strongly Opposes The company said the Pennsylvania Department of Banking had conducted 70 examinations since 2018, with 69 finding no violations, and that the Federal Trade Commission and other state regulators had investigated similar claims and closed their inquiries without action.
On the add-ons, Mariner said the products are “lawful, statutorily authorized” and that employees are trained to disclose their optional nature in writing and verbally. The company pointed to a 15-day satisfaction guarantee that lets borrowers return loan proceeds without penalty. It also argued that the complaint relied on statements from just 44 consumers out of a large Pennsylvania customer base. CEO Josh Johnson told Yahoo Finance that a “full and fair consideration” of the evidence should lead to dismissal.3Yahoo Finance. U.S. States Sue Warburg-Owned Mariner Finance
Mariner then moved to dismiss the case, calling the multistate action “an extreme instance of government overreach” and challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding structure, the states’ ability to satisfy the CFPA’s notice requirement, and the states’ ability to sue jointly outside their own jurisdictions.5GovInfo. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mariner Finance, LLC, No. 22-3253
The January 2024 Ruling
On January 12, 2024, Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge denied Mariner’s motion to dismiss in full. The court ruled that the CFPA’s venue provision is “unambiguously permissive,” so states are not confined to filing in their own jurisdictions, and it rejected Mariner’s CFPB-funding argument as a procedural rather than jurisdictional issue. The court also affirmed that state attorneys general have authority to enforce both the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices and the specific consumer financial protection laws assigned to the CFPB.5GovInfo. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mariner Finance, LLC, No. 22-3253
That ruling cleared the case to move forward on the merits.
The Tennessee Settlement
On May 8, 2026, the Tennessee Attorney General’s office announced a settlement resolving Tennessee’s claims against Mariner. The deal is valued at $11.1 million in total relief: $1 million in direct restitution to eligible Tennessee borrowers, and $10.1 million in debt cancellation for affected consumers.9Tennessee Attorney General. Tennessee Attorney General Reaches Settlement With Mariner Finance It was formalized as a consent judgment and includes no admission of wrongdoing by Mariner.10Tennessee Bar Association. Tennessee Reaches Settlement With Mariner Finance
Tennessee is the only state to have settled so far. The agreement does not affect claims brought by the other ten jurisdictions.9Tennessee Attorney General. Tennessee Attorney General Reaches Settlement With Mariner Finance
Where the Case Stands
As of mid-2026, the multistate case is still open in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. No trial date has been set, and no other state has publicly announced a settlement.11CourtListener. Docket, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mariner Finance, LLC The remaining states — Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Illinois, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin — continue to seek restitution for affected borrowers, disgorgement of Mariner’s profits, civil penalties, and a permanent injunction against the practices in the complaint.12NC DOJ. Attorney General Josh Stein Sues Predatory Lender
If you took out a Mariner Finance loan in one of those states and were charged for credit insurance, an auto club membership, or a similar add-on, the case that would determine any restitution to you is still pending. Tennessee borrowers should watch for restitution notices under the May 2026 consent judgment.