Ads Run by the Lead Vendor
Tyler is a Missouri-licensed MLO, and his sponsoring lender holds an active Missouri license. He buys leads from a vendor that also writes and posts ads under Tyler's name on Instagram and on a standalone landing page. The ads read: "Guaranteed lowest rate in Missouri - 4.99% APR, no fees, everyone approved." One ad includes a testimonial from a past borrower who says Tyler "got me a rate nobody else could." The ads list a cell phone number but no company name and no NMLS ID; Tyler's NMLS ID appears only in small type on page three of the lender's website. The vendor also emails 4,000 addresses pulled from a county recorder list. Tyler's branch manager says marketing is "the vendor's job" and that Tyler should focus on closing loans. A borrower later complains that the 4.99% rate was never available and that the ad never mentioned that the advertised APR assumed discount points.
1. Identify the problems in the advertising and explain who is responsible for them.
Read the worked answer
The responsibility question is the one Tyler most wants to get wrong. He is the named originator; the ads are attributed to him; he pays the vendor. Delegating the writing does not delegate the liability, so the content is his problem regardless of what the branch manager says.
On content, several defects compound. "Guaranteed lowest rate" is an unsubstantiated superiority claim, and pairing it with a specific 4.99% APR that was never actually available makes it a misleading statement of a material term. "Everyone approved" misrepresents the underwriting that will in fact occur. "No fees" conflicts with the disclosed discount points in the fine print. Advertising an APR without disclosing that it depends on discount points and on assumptions about loan amount, term, and down payment is a triggering-terms problem: when a rate is stated, the accompanying disclosures must be complete and accurate. The testimonial about a rate "nobody else could" get amplifies the same false comparison.
The identifying-information failures are separate: mortgage advertising must include the sponsoring company's name and the originator's NMLS unique identifier, and burying the ID on an unrelated website page does not satisfy that. The ads as written should come down immediately, not be revised over time.
2. How should Tyler handle the vendor relationship going forward, and what about the 4,000-address email list?
Read the worked answer
The vendor relationship is salvageable only if Tyler converts it from outsourcing to supervision. That means a written agreement that assigns advertising compliance obligations to the vendor, requires pre-approval by the lender's compliance team before anything is published, identifies Tyler as responsible for the content, and gives him the ability to pull ads immediately. He should also require the vendor to route every template and change through approval - not just the first version - and he should periodically screenshot what is live to verify the approved version is the one running. Because the vendor is generating leads for a licensed originator and being paid, the arrangement should also be reviewed for whether the payment structure looks like compensation to an unlicensed person; if the vendor's role drifts from advertising into negotiating terms or taking applications, it becomes an unlicensed-activity problem.
On the email blast, the source of the list is the disturbing part. Addresses scraped from a county recorder's public records are not consent-based marketing contacts. Using them raises issues under federal commercial email rules (accurate header information, no deceptive subject lines, an opt-out mechanism that works) and under the lender's own privacy policies, and it can create reputational exposure in a county where Tyler wants to do business. Tyler should stop the campaign, confirm whether any prior business relationship justifies the emails, and rebuild the list from consent-based sources.
3. The complaining borrower says the advertised rate was unavailable. What should Tyler do now, and what training or process change would prevent a repeat?
Read the worked answer
The immediate response is service recovery with documentation. Tyler should contact the borrower, review what the ad represented and what was actually offered, and correct the record in writing - including a clear statement of the rate, APR, points, and assumptions that apply to that borrower. He should not offer a rate concession as a way to make the complaint disappear unless the lender approves it and it is documented, because an ad-hoc payment to quiet a complaint can look like an admission and creates fair-lending inconsistency if only some complainants receive it. He should log the complaint, the ad copy at issue, and the remediation, and notify the lender's compliance group.
The process fix is a marketing review gate. No ad should publish without compliance sign-off recorded in writing; every rate claim should be paired with the APR, points, and assumptions; superiority claims should be eliminated; and someone should be assigned to monitor live ads and landing pages monthly. Tyler should also be retrained on the identifying-information requirements and on the rule that he owns advertising published under his name, so that "the vendor did it" is never again treated as a defense.