What does this mean for lenders using third-party marketers?
United Wholesale Mortgage is facing a class action lawsuit over alleged robocall violations, putting a spotlight on how lenders manage third-party marketing.
The lawsuit, filed on February 4, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, accuses the Michigan-based lender of repeatedly calling a residential phone number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. UWM bills itself as the number one mortgage and purchase lender in the country and the top wholesale lender for the past decade.
At the heart of the case is a Colorado woman who says she received over fifty unsolicited calls between September 24, 2025, and December 10, 2025, all pitching mortgage-refinancing services. She asked callers to stop. They allegedly did not. She sent a letter to UWM on November 7, 2025, explaining the situation and advising the company that the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The company, she claims, ignored it. At least fourteen more calls followed.
The case is Warne v. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC (Case No. 1:26-cv-00424), and it seeks class certification on behalf of others who may have experienced similar treatment.
But for mortgage professionals, the real story lies in what the lawsuit says about liability.
The filing leans heavily on Federal Communications Commission rulings that hold companies responsible for telemarketing calls made on their behalf — even if a third party actually dialed the number. A 2013 FCC ruling made clear that sellers "may be held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency" when outside marketers break the rules.
That means a lender does not need to pick up the phone itself to face consequences. If a third-party lead generator or marketing partner makes calls using the lender's name, the lender could still be on the hook.
The FCC has also said that companies cannot simply wash their hands of responsibility by outsourcing their marketing. Regulators have warned that allowing sellers to dodge liability by using "unsupervised third parties would leave consumers in many cases without an effective remedy."
The lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $500 per violation, or up to $1,500 if the violations are found to be willful. It also asks for an injunction to stop future calls.
No court has made any determination on the merits of the claims. But the case serves as a reminder that compliance programs must extend beyond internal teams. Mortgage lenders who rely on outside marketers or lead generators would do well to audit those relationships carefully.
