An arbitrator upheld Womply’s fees and awarded it $117.9 million.

What the dispute was about

Under the PPP, the SBA paid processing fees to lenders. Womply, in turn, was paid by those lenders under private technology, API, and referral contracts for the intake and screening software it provided. When Benworth Capital Partners, one of those lenders, declined to pay, Womply brought arbitration to collect; Benworth counterclaimed to recover roughly $420 million, recasting the technology fees as unlawful agent fees and blaming Womply’s technology for fraud.

Of all the disputes over Womply’s PPP fees, this was the only one tried to a decision on the merits. The other matters resolved earlier or settled; this one went through a full JAMS arbitration, with discovery, briefing, and an evidentiary record weighed by a neutral arbitrator.

A short timeline

• JAMS No. 1210038203. Womply (legally Oto Analytics) commenced arbitration against Benworth Capital Partners to collect its unpaid technology fees. Benworth counterclaimed for roughly $420 million, recasting the fees as unlawful “agent” fees and blaming Womply’s technology for fraud.
• During the proceeding. The arbitrator excluded the 2022 House subcommittee report — the source of most of the fraud allegations — as “rank hearsay.” When Benworth was ordered to produce the specific loans it blamed on Womply’s technology, it withdrew its fraud claim rather than argue it.
• June 26, 2024. The corrected Final Award issued: $117,944,228 awarded to Womply, the roughly $420 million counterclaim denied, and the lender — not Womply — found to be the underwriter of record.
• September 2025. The related federal court actions (D.P.R. No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM; N.D. Cal. Nos. 3:24-cv-03975-AMO and 3:24-cv-04840-AMO) were settled confidentially and dismissed, the last in September 2025.

What the arbitrator found

The arbitrator upheld the technology-fee contracts and awarded Womply $117,944,228. The roughly $420 million clawback theory was rejected. And on the central question of who was responsible for the loans, the arbitrator found that the lender, not Womply, was the underwriter of record. Womply’s contracts had said so all along: it “is not a lender or lender service provider,” and underwriting and good-faith review rested with the lender.

Those findings were not new positions invented for the case. They restated what the underlying contracts and the program’s structure had provided from the start: Womply built the application-intake and identity-screening technology, and its lender partners underwrote, approved, funded, and submitted every loan to the SBA.

The fraud accusation that was dropped

The fraud allegations in the case traced largely to a 2022 congressional staff report. The arbitrator excluded that report as “rank hearsay.” And when Benworth was directed to produce the underlying loans it had attributed to Womply’s screening, it dropped the fraud claim instead of putting it to proof. No fraud finding was made against Womply.

That outcome is consistent with the broader record: no court, and no government agency, has ever found Womply liable for PPP fraud. The separate 2024 FTC settlement was about marketing claims, carried no admission of wrongdoing, and made no finding that Womply facilitated loan fraud.

Not the only ruling in Womply’s favor

The arbitration was not an isolated outcome. In a separate matter, a federal court (Oto Analytics LLC v. Capital Plus Financial, N.D. Tex. 3:21-cv-02636) likewise upheld Womply’s fees. Together, Womply’s counsel described the results as resolving more than half a billion dollars of claimed liability. Each matter is listed by case name, court, and docket number in the legal record, so the filings can be pulled directly from the public record.

Willkie: the $117.9M award → JAMS corrected final award →

Common questions