United Wholesale Mortgage lawsuits now span at least six active fronts: a narrowed but still-live consumer class action in Michigan, an Ohio Attorney General enforcement case, a $100 million suit from Rocket Mortgage, two proposed telemarketing class actions, ongoing broker disputes tied to UWM’s “All In” policy, and employment claims that have produced significant appellate rulings. Some claims have been dismissed with prejudice; several core allegations, including RESPA kickback claims and state consumer protection counts, are moving forward as of mid-2026.
Escue Consumer Class Action
The largest consumer case, Escue et al. v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, et al., was filed April 2, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Borrowers alleged UWM worked with mortgage brokers to funnel loans back to UWM at above-market rates rather than shopping for the best deals, and brought claims under RESPA, the federal RICO statute, and multiple state consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs are represented by Boies Schiller Flexner.
On October 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Brandy R. McMillion granted UWM’s motion to dismiss in large part. Dismissed with prejudice: the federal RICO counts, unjust enrichment claims, state bribery claims, and consumer protection claims under California, Tennessee, and North Carolina law. Every claim against CEO Mat Ishbia personally and against holding entities UWM Holdings Corp. and SFS Holding Corp. was thrown out. The court found the plaintiffs did not show UWM’s conduct was the “proximate cause” of their injuries, and wrote that the alleged broker conduct “originated from the brokers, not UWM.”
Two categories of claims survived. RESPA claims about alleged kickbacks tied to broker compensation remain for plaintiffs Jill Jeffries and Daniel Singh. Claims under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act remain for Brian Weatherill, Jeffries, and Singh. The judge denied UWM’s motion for sanctions and declined to strike the class allegations at that stage.
Ohio Attorney General Enforcement Action
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost sued UWM on April 17, 2025, in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The state alleges UWM presents its affiliated brokers as independent shoppers while colluding with them to route loans back to UWM. According to the complaint, UWM issued roughly $605 million in mortgages to Ohio borrowers through these brokers from 2021 through 2023, and the brokers involved directed 99 percent of their loan volume to UWM. In 2023 alone, 50 of these brokers channeled a combined $215 million to the company.
The complaint alleges violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, the Residential Mortgage Lending Act, and the state’s Corrupt Practices Act. Yost is seeking consumer restitution, civil penalties, and a compliance order.
UWM tried to move the case to federal court. Judge Thomas M. Rose granted Ohio’s motion to remand on September 4, 2025, and UWM’s efforts to stay that remand pending appeal were denied in October 2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals entered judgment in December 2025, and the case is now proceeding in state court.
Rocket Mortgage’s $100 Million Suit
On May 14, 2026, Rocket Mortgage filed suit against UWM in the Supreme Court of the State of New York seeking nearly $100 million. The case stems from Rocket’s October 2025 acquisition of Mr. Cooper Group. Rocket alleges UWM breached a written non-solicitation agreement with Mr. Cooper by soliciting borrowers across approximately 182,000 loans for which Mr. Cooper held servicing rights. The complaint says UWM’s solicitations over the preceding 18 months caused prepayments 2.5 times higher than expected. UWM called the claims “baseless and opportunistic.”
Broker Suits Over the “All In” Policy
UWM’s “All In” initiative, introduced in 2021, requires brokers working with UWM to stop doing business with Rocket Mortgage and Fairway Independent Mortgage. Violations carry a penalty of the greater of $50,000 or $5,000 per loan sent to a restricted competitor. The policy has produced litigation in both directions.
UWM has sued brokers it accuses of breaking the agreement. In one completed case, U.S. District Judge Laurie Michelson awarded UWM $70,000 against Kevron Investments Inc., rejecting the argument that the liquidated damages clause was an invalid penalty and calling the contract language “clear and unambiguous.” Two larger broker cases remain active:
- Atlantic Trust Mortgage Corp.: UWM alleges the firm sent 71 loans to Rocket or Fairway since December 2022 and seeks at least $355,000.
- District Lending: UWM alleges the firm sent 137 loans to restricted competitors since March 2021 and seeks at least $420,000.
Federal judges in the Eastern District of Michigan denied motions to dismiss in both. Brokers that filed counterclaims have not fared well: America’s Moneyline had its fraud countersuit dismissed, and The Okavage Group’s 2021 suit against UWM was also dismissed.
Ishbia Ordered to Sit for Deposition
The Atlantic Trust case produced a discovery fight over whether Ishbia would be deposed. Atlantic Trust argued Ishbia was personally involved in designing the “All In” penalty structure; UWM invoked the “apex doctrine,” which sometimes shields senior executives from depositions. On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg held UWM in civil contempt for failing to produce Ishbia and ordered the company to make him available within 30 days for a deposition of up to four hours. The judge also imposed attorney-fee sanctions covering Atlantic Trust’s costs in enforcing the order. UWM said it disagreed with the finding but would comply.
Telemarketing Class Actions
Two proposed class actions accuse UWM of liability for unsolicited telemarketing by its broker network.
Warne v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC was filed around February 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Bridget Warne of Peyton, Colorado alleges she received more than 50 calls in under three months despite repeated requests to stop, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Do Not Call Registry rules. She seeks class certification, an injunction, and $500 per violation. UWM has filed a combined motion to transfer, dismiss, and strike the class allegations, and briefing is ongoing.
Mogck v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC was filed March 3, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Texas resident William Mogck. It argues UWM is liable for unsolicited marketing texts sent by brokers using UWM’s proprietary tools and training. Mogck seeks $500 per violation, up to $1,500 for willful violations, and injunctive relief on behalf of two proposed nationwide classes. The case is in its early stages.
Employment and Arbitration Cases
UWM’s employment litigation has produced two notable Sixth Circuit rulings against the company on arbitration.
In Memmer v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, decided April 18, 2025, the Sixth Circuit reversed an order compelling a former employee’s sexual harassment claim into arbitration. Interpreting the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, the court held that the law applies to disputes that arose after its March 2022 enactment, even where the underlying claim accrued earlier. The panel sent the case back to determine when the dispute first arose, noting a dispute can begin before a lawsuit is filed, such as when an employee registers disagreement and the employer pushes back.
In Schwebke v. United Wholesale Mortgage, decided in March 2024, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of UWM’s motion to compel arbitration on different grounds. The court found UWM had implicitly waived its right to arbitrate by litigating for seven months, including document production, depositions, and third-party subpoenas, without mentioning arbitration or raising it as an affirmative defense.
A separate employment case was filed in January 2026 by Brad Rosa, a former UWM corporate attorney, alleging retaliation and wrongful termination. Rosa says UWM adopted a policy in November 2025 requiring attorneys to sign attorney opinion letters in states where they were not licensed, and that he was fired after refusing. UWM has said the program was “thoroughly researched and approved by legal counsel” and that it is confident in the program’s legality. The case appears to remain in its early stages.