Fannie Mae claims warranty companies misused its name in urgent mailings to mortgage borrowers nationwide
A major player in the U.S. mortgage market is taking on several home warranty firms, accusing them of misusing the Fannie Mae name in a nationwide marketing push.
Federal National Mortgage Association, widely recognized as Fannie Mae, has initiated federal litigation against Warranty Global Group, Inc., US Home Guard, LLC, Superior Home Protection, LLC, and Oasis Home Protection, LLC. The case, filed in the Northern District of Ohio, centers on allegations that these companies used Fannie Mae’s well-known service mark in a series of unsolicited home warranty mailings, misleading borrowers into believing the products were affiliated with or endorsed by the mortgage giant.
According to the court filing, Fannie Mae claims the companies orchestrated a coordinated campaign beginning in or around July 2023 and continuing through the present, sending out mailers across the country that prominently featured the Fannie Mae name and, in some cases, the phrase “FANNIE MAE MORTGAGE®.” The documents assert that these solicitations were crafted to look official, complete with urgent language such as “IMMEDIATE RESPONSE NEEDED” and references to “Official Business” and bar codes, all designed to create an impression of legitimacy and urgency.
The filings detail how the companies allegedly obscured their own identities, sometimes relegating their names to fine print or omitting them altogether. Fannie Mae contends this led to actual confusion, with borrowers contacting the organization under the impression that the mailings were genuine communications from their mortgage holder. The mortgage giant maintains that it has never authorized these companies to use its name, nor does it require or endorse home warranty products for properties tied to its loans.
Fannie Mae’s court documents describe the impact as significant, claiming the misuse of its mark has diluted the brand, damaged its reputation, and eroded trust in the mortgage industry. The company is seeking to halt the use of its name, recover damages, and have all misleading marketing materials destroyed.
The allegations extend beyond simple misuse of a trademark. Fannie Mae accuses the companies of deliberately trading on its reputation to drive sales, asserting that the scheme was designed to induce borrowers to purchase home warranties under false pretenses. The filings also note that the companies’ actions have resulted in actual consumer confusion, with some individuals allegedly purchasing products they believed were required or endorsed by Fannie Mae.
Industry observers will recognize the broader implications of the case. At its core, the dispute raises questions about the protection of institutional brands in the mortgage sector, the responsibilities of third-party service providers, and the standards for marketing practices that target homeowners. For mortgage professionals, the outcome could influence compliance expectations and shape how major industry names are used—or misused—in the marketplace.
As the case moves through the federal court system, it stands as a reminder for lenders, servicers, and industry partners: the unauthorized use of a trusted name carries risks, not only for consumers but for the integrity of the mortgage business as a whole. All claims remain to be tested in court, and the companies named in the suit have yet to respond to the allegations.
