3:24-cv-01730
S.D. Cal.May 13, 2025Background
- Longbridge Financial sued Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Review Counsel LLC, and Advisory Institute LLC, alleging false advertising and deceptive practices related to online reviews of reverse mortgage providers.
- Review Counsel is wholly owned by Mutual of Omaha; Advisory Institute was founded by Mutual of Omaha’s former General Counsel, with Mutual of Omaha as its sole advertising partner.
- Longbridge alleges the defendants' websites falsely present themselves as objective and independent despite their financial ties to Mutual of Omaha, use misleading ratings, and deceptive Google ads to drive traffic.
- After Longbridge filed suit, the defendants modified their disclosures and website content, but Longbridge argues these changes remain inadequate.
- Longbridge moved for a preliminary injunction to remove or alter certain website content and prevent future deceptive conduct during litigation.
- The court determined the requested injunction was mandatory (requiring the defendants to act), and therefore applied a heightened standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandatory vs. Prohibitory Injunction | Relief only prohibits further false advertising | Relief is mandatory, requiring affirmative actions | Court agrees with defendants; applies heightened standard |
| False or Misleading Statements (Lanham Act) | Defendants’ ads and disclosures mislead consumers about independence | Disclosures are sufficient, ratings are non-actionable opinions | Court finds in favor of Longbridge for specific past and some current statements |
| Materiality and Consumer Deception | Deceptions were likely to influence consumer purchasing decisions | Consumers are sophisticated; harm is speculative | Court presumes materiality and deception for literally false/misleading statements |
| Injunctive Relief and Irreparable Harm | Ongoing harm to business, loss of goodwill, and unfair diversion | No evidence of irreparable harm; harm is pecuniary/remedied by damages | Presumption of irreparable harm applies; harm not sufficiently rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (standard for preliminary injunction; must show likelihood of success and irreparable harm).
- Ariix, LLC v. NutriSearch Corp., 985 F.3d 1107 (subjective selection of review criteria not actionable under Lanham Act).
- Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (elements for Lanham Act false advertising claim).
- Cleary v. News Corp., 30 F.3d 1255 (scope of Lanham Act section 43(a)).
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (difference between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions).
- Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (analysis of mandatory/prohibitory injunction distinction and standard).