/>iInteresting one for you today.
Lending Tree–whose incredible general counsel Heather Enlow-Novitsky will be speaking at Law Conference of Champions in just a couple of months– just gained home field advantage in an odd suit arising out of a Lending tree brokered loan.
In Pro REO Settlement Services v. Lending Tree, 2025 WL 1225221 (N.D. Oh. April 28, 2025) the Court elected to enforce a forum selection clause in the parties’ agreements and kicked the case from Ohio to North Carolina where Lending Tree lives. The Court disagreed with Plaintiff’s argument Tree had waived the forum selection clause by failing to respond to an email about the claim and easily determined the forum selection clause should be enforced.
The background here is interesting.
Per the court’s summary of the facts Plaintiffs Pro REO Settlement Services, LLC and Kevin Ra applied for and received a business loan from Headway Capital, LLC and LendingTree, Inc. brokered the loan. (I didn’t even know Lending Tree did that.)
Allegedly Pro REO Settlement Services and Mr. Ra informed LendingTree and Headway Capital that their phone numbers and email addresses should not be shared with third parties for marketing purposes and that they do not consent to receiving any calls other than those required to complete the loan process. (Sounds made up, but ok.)
Since then, Plaintiffs allege that unsolicited telemarketing calls and emails have inundated their phone numbers and email addresses, overwhelming those communication channels and rendering them useless. Pro REO Settlement Services and Mr. Ra contend that this flood of telemarking resulted from LendingTree and Headway Capital sharing their phone numbers and email addresses with third-party marketers, if not engaging in unlawful telemarketing themselves.
Hmmmm.
This is a weird story.
Plaintiffs claim LT brokered a loan and then they got a bunch of marketing calls from third-partied and that, therefore, LT must have shared its information with a bunch of parties. And then the Plaintiffs sue LT–rather than the callers– for TCPA violations.
I feel like there are pieces missing to this story. None of this really adds up. But perhaps we will learn more as the case progresses in North Carolina.
