In another practice cited in the suit, borrowers who received a pre-approval from Rocket Mortgage were allegedly referred to Rocket Homes and matched with a real estate agent. When the borrower ultimately bought the home through that agent, the broker paid Rocket Homes a referral fee — usually around 35% — for services the lawsuit claims Rocket Homes didn’t actually provide.
“The coercion of the agents is what makes this case different; they argued that Rocket’s strategy was play money,” said James Brody, managing partner at . Brody Gapp LLP. “The most damaging aspect of this appeal is the erosion of the fiduciary wall – the home buyer trusts their agent to be an independent advisor, and if that advisor is encouraged to prioritize the borrower’s loan volume over the borrower’s financial benefits, that relationship is undoubtedly at risk.”
Plaintiffs Barbara Waller, Elizabeth Johnson and Randel Clark bought homes between 2021 and 2023 through real estate agents who they say didn’t give them options — or push them to use Rocket Mortgage or Amrockgroup title company.
They are represented by Hagens Bermana consumer protection law firm that has also been involved in similar cases Zillow as well as National Association of Realtors. Attorneys for Hagens Berman declined to comment on the matter.
A Rocket spokesperson answered questions from HousingWire by saying: “You will find our answers to those questions in our rebuttals which we will send at the right time.”
Possible sticking points
In a motion to dismiss Rocket’s claims, the judge will look only at the sufficiency of the allegations. But legal experts see more challenges in the lawsuit moving forward, including whether it can be certified as a class action.
“That’s where a lot of the battle is going to happen, at least initially,” said Troy Garris, co-managing partner. Garris Horn LLP. “Plaintiffs will have to show that it is more reasonable to sue as a class rather than an individual. To do that, they must show that the alleged injuries and conduct are sufficiently similar. Here, any evidence of injury appears to be individual, involving different agents and different states.”
Colgate Selden, a shareholder in Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PCnoted that the complaint does not address any of the exceptions to Section 8 of RESPA related to the separation of compensation under cooperative brokerage and referral arrangements between real estate agents and sellers. (Disclosure: Rocket is a client of the law firm, but Selden — who joined the firm this week — does not represent the lender.)
“They focus on fiduciary obligations, but that’s a situational analysis,” Selden said. “There are fiduciary duty waivers in many of the standard agency forms depending on the specific client relationship, so obtaining class certification based on this complaint would be difficult.”
Another challenge, Selden added, is the one-year statute of limitations on Section 8 private actions. The complaint alleges that each alleged reversal constitutes a separate violation, thereby resetting the statute of limitations clock.
Rocket’s first response to the lawsuit was that “the claims in this case are a complete repetition of the case that Consumer Finance Protection Bureau filled and quickly dismissed.”
The company was referring to a CFPB complaint, filed in December 2024, that raised similar allegations. It was dismissed in February 2025. The plaintiffs in the current case say the dismissal of the earlier complaint had more to do with the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken the CFPB, rather than the merits of the case.
“Actually, legal dismissals can be political or resource-driven, while a triple jury trial is a whole different ball game,” Brody said. “Plaintiffs are betting they can prove what regulators may not have had the time — or the political will — to pursue.”
History by suspicion
The lawsuit alleges that a 2019 agreement between Rocket Homes and its affiliate agents required them to “maintain and protect” the customer’s relationship with their lender of choice, Quicken Loans (now Rocket Mortgage).
Agents are said to have also been instructed to promote the benefits of using Quicken and other companies affiliated with Rocket, with warnings that deliberately driving away customers could result in termination of the relationship.
According to the complaint, the agent’s performance – including Quicken loan conversion rates, which were expected to reach 80% of customers – was a key factor in determining the eligibility of the referral. Rocket Homes allegedly used these metrics to determine which agents received referrals and how many.
The 2022 version of the agreement reportedly required agents to notify Rocket Homes when customers were considering other lenders. Although these arrangements were in place for five years, the complaint says their “spirit” continued beyond that.
According to the CFPB’s investigation, an estimated 50% of all fines assessed by Rocket Homes against agents are due to violations of the “save and protect” requirement.
“Plaintiffs appear to be relying heavily on the theory that the company pressured agents to transfer business internally,” Garris said. “But pressuring the agent is not really the same as pressuring the borrower, or requiring the borrower to use a particular lender. Of course, the devil is in the details.”
Although RESPA prohibits quid pro quo payments, known as kickbacks, it allows for a variety of other compensation arrangements, leaving room for interpretation.
Fees for advanced production or desk rental, for example, are often allowed — but only if they reflect a reasonable market value and are consistent with the actual services provided. Regulators may also require detailed proof of these services, otherwise, such payments may be considered illegal referral fees, lawyers said.
“Allegations suggest that Rocket Homes established different market rates depending on which agents submitted loans to Rocket Mortgage,” said Ron Gapp, founder of Brody Gapp LLP. “That differential treatment is where RESPA issues can arise.”
Getting Redfin to cover their tracks?
After the CFPB case was dismissed, Rocket received a real estate sale Redfin for $1.75 billion — a move the lawsuit sees as a “method” to bring the alleged manipulation in-house.
Plaintiffs allege, by knowledge and belief, that Rocket knew its conduct was “unlawful.” The acquisition added more than 2,200 agents to the Rocket network.
According to the lawsuit, “Rocket offers Redfin agents increased referrals, an item of value, in exchange for agents referring customers to Rocket Mortgage, an item of value. Requiring agents to provide referrals to Rocket Mortgage in exchange for leads is evidence of an illegal steering scheme and unjust enrichment.”
Advocates say that RESPA is often interpreted to allow the transfer of affiliate programs, as long as certain conditions are met. For example, the directing party must provide appropriate related business disclosures, cannot require the borrower to use a joint venture, and must not receive anything of value beyond the return of ownership interest.
Plaintiffs allege violations of RESPA and unjust enrichment. they are seeking treble damages, single damages, rescission and injunctive relief to stop Rocket’s administrative procedures.
Sarah Wolak contributed reporting to this story.
