Mariner Finance LLC Lawsuit: State Claims, 2024 Ruling, and Settlement

The Mariner Finance lawsuit is a multistate consumer-protection case filed in August 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in which a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general alleges the subprime installment lender deceived borrowers by packing hidden insurance and other add-on products into their loans. The case, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC (No. 2:22-cv-03253-KBH), is still active. Tennessee became the first state to settle, agreeing to an $11.1 million resolution filed with the court on May 8, 2026.¹

What the States Say Mariner Did

The heart of the complaint is a practice regulators call credit insurance packing. According to the attorneys general, Mariner routinely attached costly products to consumer loans — credit life insurance, disability coverage, involuntary unemployment insurance, accidental death and dismemberment policies, and auto club memberships — without borrowers knowing they were paying for them, or after borrowers had said no.² Employees allegedly failed to mention the products at loan closings, said they were required when they were not, or misstated their cost.

The complaint describes an electronic closing in which borrowers signed documents on a wall-mounted screen controlled by a Mariner employee. The employee scrolled through pages too quickly for borrowers to read what they were agreeing to, so consumers relied on what they were told out loud, and what they were told was often wrong.² The premiums were financed upfront into the loan principal on a single-premium basis, which increased both the balance and the interest borrowers paid over the life of the loan. About 80 percent of Mariner loans nationwide included at least one add-on product, and in 2019 the company collected roughly $122 million in premiums and fees for those products alone, not counting interest.³

Two other practices sit alongside the packing claim. The complaint alleges Mariner mailed unsolicited live checks to consumers identified through credit bureau prescreening. Cashing a check created a loan, and Mariner employees then pushed the consumer by phone, email, and mail to come into a branch and refinance, at which point add-ons were loaded onto the new loan.⁴ The complaint also describes loan flipping: Mariner allegedly incentivized employees to persuade borrowers to refinance existing loans into larger ones even when the refinance gave the borrower no real benefit, generating new origination fees and new commissions each time.² Corporate headquarters, according to the states, set minimum add-on sales expectations at each branch and disciplined managers who fell short.

Who Is Suing and Under What Laws

The original 2022 complaint was brought by the attorneys general of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and the District of Columbia.⁵ On April 1, 2024, the court allowed six more states to intervene: Illinois, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. That brought the coalition to twelve jurisdictions.⁶

The federal claims rest on the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Truth in Lending Act. Each participating state also asserts claims under its own consumer protection statutes.⁷ The coalition is seeking full restitution for affected borrowers, disgorgement of profits, civil penalties, loan rescission or reformation, and a permanent injunction against the challenged practices. Mariner Finance is the only defendant; its private-equity owner is not named.

The 2024 Ruling That Kept the Case Alive

In January 2024, Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge denied Mariner Finance’s motion to dismiss. Mariner had argued, among other things, that state attorneys general lacked authority to enforce the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act, that the CFPB’s funding structure was unconstitutional, and that a multistate format was improper. The court rejected each argument.⁸ The ruling confirmed that state attorneys general can bring federal consumer-protection claims collectively against nonbank lenders in federal court.

The Tennessee Settlement

Tennessee filed a proposed consent judgment on May 8, 2026, providing $11.1 million in total consumer relief: $1 million in direct restitution to eligible Tennessee borrowers and $10.1 million in cancelled consumer debt. Mariner also agreed to pay $150,000 in attorneys’ fees and up to $200,000 for a third-party administrator. The company did not admit wrongdoing.⁹

The consent judgment also imposes operational changes on Mariner’s Tennessee branches for five years, beginning 180 days after court approval:

A defined sequence of written and oral disclosures at set stages of the loan process.
Every optional product must be cancellable at any time, with a full refund if cancelled within 60 days, and a full refund whenever a borrower was unaware of or misinformed about the product. Employees may not try to talk consumers out of cancelling.
Employee compensation can no longer be tied to the volume of optional products sold.
No origination fees on refinances of the same product type within three months of the original loan.
Mariner must stop requesting personal references on loan applications and cannot contact references it already has.
Electronically signed documents must be time-stamped, complaint and cancellation calls must be recorded, and cancellations must be handled by a centralized team.

These terms apply only in Tennessee. They do not bind Mariner’s conduct in the other states still litigating, and Tennessee’s judgment still requires court approval.⁹

Where the Case Stands Now

As of mid-2026, the case remains active in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Eleven plaintiffs continue to litigate: Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.⁹ Whether other states will pursue their own settlements or push the claims to trial has not been publicly announced.

1
Tennessee Attorney General. Tennessee Settlement With Mariner Finance
2
Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Mariner Finance, LLC, Complaint
3
CBS News Pittsburgh. AG Shapiro: Mariner Finance Heaped Insurance Plans Onto Unwitting Borrowers
4
North Carolina Department of Justice. Attorney General Josh Stein Sues Predatory Lender
5
New Jersey Office of Attorney General. Acting Attorney General Platkin Sues Private-Equity-Run Lending Company for Deceiving Consumers Out of Millions
6
Wisconsin Department of Justice. Mariner Finance Press Release
7
North Carolina Department of Justice. Second Amended Complaint, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mariner Finance, LLC
8
Holland & Knight LLP. Will Mariner Finance Decision Lead State Regulators to Bring
9
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Tennessee Reaches Settlement With Mariner Finance in Multi-State UDAAP Enforcement Action