So a loan officer at one mortgage company leaves the mortgage company he was with and seemingly steals leads and takes them to another mortgage company (maybe this was allowed, but I doubt it.)

While at the new mortgage company he sends out robocalls to the leads he obtained from the prior company–including leads submitted on leandingtree.com.

One of the call recipients sues under the TCPA claiming she had consented to receive calls from the first mortgage company but not the second because Lending Tree had only transferred the lead to the first company.

The second mortgage company–Fairway Independent Mortgage Company– moved for summary judgment in the case arguing that because it too was on the vast Lending Tree partners list, the consumer’s lead was valid for the calls placed by the LO while employed by it as well.

Well in Shakih v. Fairway, 2025 WL 692104 (N.D. Ill March , 2025) the Court determined a jury would have to decide the issue.

Although Plaintiff submitted the Lending Tree form and thereby agreed to be contacted by over 2,000 companies–including both of the mortgage companies at issue– the Lending Tree website provided the information would only be provided to five of those companies.

In the Court’s view a jury could easily determine the consumer’s agreement to provide consent was limited to only the five companies Lending Tree selected on the consumer’s behalf to receive calls– not to all 2,000 companies.

Lending Tree itself submitted a brief explaining that sharing leads between partners is not permitted, and the Court found this submission valuable in assessing the scope of the consent the consumer was presumed to have given.

The Court was also unmoved that the LO had previously spoken to the plaintiff while employed at his previous mortgage company–the mere fact that the LO changed jobs did not expand the scope of the consent that was previously given.

So like I said, absolutely fascinating case. The jury will have to sort it out and we will pay close attention to this one.