SCOTUS Declines Final Review of CFPB’s $7.9 Million Judgment Over Bi-Weekly Mortgage Payment Program

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to further review a Ninth Circuit decision affirming a $7.9 million civil money penalty against a company which offered consumers a bi-weekly mortgage payment program.

In one of the CFPB’s longest-running enforcement actions, the agency filed suit in 2015 against a company which offered a program to assist consumers in making bi-weekly mortgage payments to their regular mortgage servicer.  This would result in consumers making the equivalent of 13 monthly mortgage payments each year instead of the normal 12 payments.  The extra payment each year would result in a quicker loan payoff and ostensibly save consumers money by reducing the amount of interest they would pay over the life of the loan.  The CFPB alleged UDAAP and Telemarketing Sales Rule violations based on the company allegedly overstating that consumers would see immediate saving, when in fact most savings would come near the end of the life of the loan and because potential early savings would be offset by a large initial set-up fee.  Further, the CFPB claimed the company misled consumer by implying that the company was affiliated with their regular mortgage servicers, as well as about the amount of the program’s cost to the consumer.  After a bench trial in 2017, the court ordered the company to pay a $7.9 million civil money penalty based on findings that some of the company advertising statements were false or misleading.  However, the court declined to order approximately $74 million in restitution requested by the CFPB in connection with the company’s initial set-up fees as the court found that the program costs and fee amounts were sufficiently disclosed.

The company appealed the judgment and the CFPB appealed the denial of restitution.  The appeals process was held up for many years after additional disputes arose regarding the impact of subsequent SCOTUS decisions on the constitutionality of restrictions on the president’s ability to remove the CFPB director (discussed here) and on the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding structure (discussed here).

Ultimately, in November 2025, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the underlying district court decision.  The appellate court held in key part that the district court’s factual findings—including that some of the company’s advertisements were false and misleading—were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous.  The court rejected a variety of other alleged errors, including holding that the company was not harmed by the unconstitutional restriction on the president’s ability to remove the CFPB director, as there was no indication the CFPB would have acted differently even if the restriction had not been in place at the time the case was brought.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to decline further review of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion suggests that the case may now be at an end.