There Should Be a Price to Pay for Knowingly Lying to Consumers
Why TINA.org wants the Supreme Court to address proof of harm in Lanham Act cases.
Contee et al. v. Union Home Mortgage Corp.
25-cv-2009, N.D. Ohio
(Sept. 2025)
Dimarco et al. v. Union Home Mortgage Corp.
25-cv-2073, N.D. Ohio
(Sept. 2025)
Fink et al. v. Union Home Mortgage Corp.
25-cv-2082, N.D. Ohio
(Sept. 2025)
Kinney et al. v. Union Home Mortgage Corp.
25-cv-2089, N.D. Ohio
(Oct. 2025)
McMullen et al. v. Union Home Mortgage Corp.
25-cv-2035, N.D. Ohio
(Sept. 2025)
Rudd et al. v. Union Home Mortgage Corp.
25-cv-1874, N.D. Ohio
(Sept. 2025)
Washington et al. v. Union Home Mortgage Corp.
25-cv-2049, N.D. Ohio
(Sept. 2025)
Union Home Mortgage
Misrepresenting that the company protects consumers’ personal information when it failed to do so and there was a data breach in 2025
Pending
Why TINA.org wants the Supreme Court to address proof of harm in Lanham Act cases.
Letters alert agencies and organizations to company’s improper marketing.
TINA.org discovers some roadblocks to unlocking this purportedly free offer.
New research points to “no.”
Why disclosures are key to protecting informed consumer choice and competition.