A federal judge has dismissed most claims in a high-profile consumer class-action lawsuit targeting United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM), the nation’s largest wholesale mortgage lender, significantly curtailing the plaintiffs’ case but leaving a narrow path forward for limited legal claims. The decision, issued by Judge Brandy R. McMillion of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, represents a major procedural victory for UWM, which has been under scrutiny for its business practices involving independent mortgage brokers.
Background of the Case
The lawsuit, Escue v. United Wholesale Mortgage LLC, was filed by a group of consumers who alleged that UWM’s business model unfairly inflated loan costs for borrowers. The plaintiffs contended that UWM, in coordination with a network of mortgage brokers, orchestrated a system that effectively restricted consumer choice and directed borrowers toward higher-priced loans.
According to the complaint, UWM treated independent mortgage brokers as de facto agents, pressuring them to steer clients toward UWM-backed mortgages—even when other lenders offered more competitive rates. The plaintiffs accused UWM of engaging in deceptive practices, racketeering, and consumer fraud, allegedly extracting billions of dollars in excess fees through anti-competitive conduct.
UWM firmly denied the allegations, calling the claims speculative and unsupported by evidence. The company asserted that borrowers were free to choose among numerous lenders and that its relationships with brokers complied fully with federal and state laws.
Adding intrigue to the litigation, UWM accused the plaintiffs’ law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, of collaborating with hedge fund Hunterbrook Capital, which reportedly held short positions in UWM’s stock. UWM alleged that the lawsuit was part of a coordinated effort to damage the company’s reputation and influence its market value—claims that Boies Schiller denied, maintaining it had no financial relationship or strategic coordination with the hedge fund.
Judge McMillion’s Ruling
In a detailed order issued on October 1, 2025, Judge McMillion granted UWM’s motion to dismiss the majority of the claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient factual support for their allegations.
The court ruled that the complaint did not adequately demonstrate that UWM’s actions directly caused harm to consumers or that the company engaged in unlawful conduct under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs’ theory of a “steering enterprise” lacked the specific evidence necessary to meet federal pleading standards.
Furthermore, the court dismissed claims of fraud and deceptive practices, determining that the plaintiffs had not clearly connected their alleged financial injuries—such as paying higher loan fees or rates—to specific misrepresentations by UWM.
Despite the sweeping dismissal, Judge McMillion allowed two claims to proceed:
- A federal mortgage protection statute claim, which addresses specific limits on lender-broker relationships and compensation structures.
- A Florida state consumer protection claim, which alleges violations under state law for deceptive or unfair trade practices.
These surviving claims keep the lawsuit partially alive, though on a much narrower scope than originally filed. The court also rejected UWM’s request for sanctions against the plaintiffs’ attorneys, ruling that while the case fell short on many fronts, it was not filed in bad faith.
Reactions from Both Sides
United Wholesale Mortgage hailed the ruling as a decisive win. In a public statement, the company noted that “nearly all claims and defendants were dismissed,” emphasizing that the decision validates its long-standing position that the lawsuit lacked merit. UWM maintained that it operates with transparency and integrity, insisting that its partnerships with mortgage brokers are designed to promote competitive lending and consumer choice.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately comment following the ruling. However, the limited claims that remain open indicate that the litigation will continue, albeit in a much-reduced form. Legal analysts suggest that the plaintiffs now face an uphill battle in proving that UWM’s broker arrangements violated federal or state lending laws.
Broader Legal and Industry Implications
The partial dismissal carries implications beyond UWM, signaling how courts may handle future cases involving alleged broker steering or anti-competitive practices in mortgage lending. Legal experts note that while the mortgage industry relies heavily on broker relationships, plaintiffs must show clear evidence of consumer harm and direct causation to advance complex financial litigation.
Judge McMillion’s ruling also reflects a growing judicial skepticism toward expansive conspiracy allegations in the mortgage and financial sectors. Without precise, documentable proof linking alleged misconduct to actual consumer injury, such cases are likely to face early dismissal.
For UWM, this decision significantly narrows its legal exposure and shields it from the broad discovery demands that often accompany class-action suits. However, the company is not entirely in the clear. The surviving claims could still result in discovery proceedings and limited damages if proven at trial or through settlement negotiations.
Consumer advocates view the outcome as a mixed result—while the court curtailed the plaintiffs’ broader allegations, it preserved essential consumer protection avenues that can still hold lenders accountable under federal and state laws.
What Comes Next
The case will now proceed to the next phase, focusing on the remaining federal and Florida state claims. Plaintiffs are expected to refine their arguments and potentially amend portions of the complaint to strengthen their factual assertions. UWM, for its part, will continue to contest the remaining allegations vigorously.
This lawsuit forms part of a wider series of legal and reputational challenges for major mortgage lenders as regulators and borrowers scrutinize lending practices in a post-pandemic market defined by rising interest rates and affordability concerns.
Explore Legal Career Opportunities with LawCrossing
Stay informed and advance your career in the rapidly evolving world of financial and consumer protection law. Whether your interests lie in class-action litigation, compliance, or financial regulation, LawCrossing offers access to thousands of opportunities at top firms, corporations, and government agencies.
👉 Visit LawCrossing today to find your next role in the legal industry shaping tomorrow’s mortgage and consumer rights landscape.
