Womply The Record

The legal record

The legal record.

Womply’s resolved litigation and enforcement matters, each identified by case name, court, and docket number so it can be pulled from the public record. Where a matter settled confidentially, the resolution is public; the terms are not.

Civil litigation · Florida state court

Fountainhead SBF, LLC v. Oto Analytics, Inc. (Womply)

Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, Florida · No. 2021-CA-002143 · Filed August 27, 2021 · Dismissed with prejudice November 18, 2022

Fountainhead SBF, LLC was a lender that used Womply’s technology platform (the Teslar Portal) to process its PPP loans. When Fountainhead stopped paying, Womply terminated its access. In its motion to compel arbitration, Womply stated it “terminated the Agreement, as it is expressly permitted to do, because Fountainhead failed to pay Womply over $90 million in fees due under the Agreements,”1 and noted it had opened a JAMS arbitration in June 2021 to recover them.2 Fountainhead sued in Seminole County to compel return of the loan files, which it could not access without Womply’s software.3 Womply produced them on October 7, 2021 as a one-time export: a hard drive of “millions of documents derived from the Teslar technology platform.”4

The 2022 House Select Subcommittee report claimed Fountainhead had to obtain a temporary restraining order to stop Womply from destroying loan documents. Both points are false. No restraining order or injunction was ever entered; the court issued only an order to show cause that, by its terms, “makes no determination as to the merits.”5 And Womply did not withhold the loan files; it had already produced them. Fountainhead dismissed the case with prejudice on November 18, 2022, each side bearing its own costs.6

Source: Seminole County Clerk of the Circuit Court, public case file No. 2021-CA-002143. courtrecords.seminoleclerk.org

Civil litigation · U.S. District Court (N.D. Tex.)

Oto Analytics, Inc. (Womply) v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, et al.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division · Judge Jane J. Boyle · No. 3:21-cv-02636-B · Filed 2021 · Dismissed with prejudice January 5, 2023

Womply sued Capital Plus in federal court to recover more than $76 million in PPP referral and technology fees it was owed but had never been paid. To justify paying nothing, Capital Plus argued that Womply was an SBA “agent” whose fees were capped by program rules and so were unlawful to collect.7 The co-defendants included the PPP facilitator Blueacorn (BA Fin Orion).

On May 11, 2022, on a motion to dismiss, the court let Womply’s core claims proceed (declaratory judgment, tortious interference, and fraud) and declined to find that the SBA’s fee-cap regulation “clearly precludes the collection of a Technology Fee.”8 The parties settled in November 2022, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on January 5, 2023, each side bearing its own costs.9 The settlement terms are confidential.

Source: Memorandum Opinion and Order (May 11, 2022) and docket, No. 3:21-cv-02636-B. Justia · govinfo · full docket on CourtListener

Federal agency action · SBA

U.S. Small Business Administration administrative action

Administrative action (no court case) · Suspension announced December 8, 2022

On December 8, 2022, a week after the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis issued its report, the SBA announced it had suspended Womply (and Blueacorn) from working with the agency and had opened investigations into eight lenders of record.10 The agency suspended only the two non-lenders; it did not suspend the lenders it was investigating, and the public record reflects no announced SBA action against any of those lenders.

Womply was not an SBA lender.11 It did not underwrite, approve, or fund PPP loans; it was not a party to any agreement with the SBA; and it received no payments from the government. Womply built the borrower-facing technology that collected and screened applications, while the lenders of record made every credit decision, held the SBA lender agreements, and were paid the government’s loan-processing fees.12 Womply was paid by lenders and their facilitators under private contracts, not from the SBA. The public record reflects no charge, debarment finding, or court proceeding against Womply arising from the suspension.

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration, statement on the House Select Subcommittee report, December 8, 2022. sba.gov

Federal enforcement · FTC

FTC v. Oto Analytics, Inc. (Womply) and Toby Scammell

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · No. 3:24-cv-01661 · Stipulated order filed April 4, 2024

The FTC action concerned how Womply advertised its “PPP Fast Lane” product: how fast an application would move and how likely it was to be funded. It did not allege loan fraud.13 Under a stipulated order filed April 4, 2024, Womply and its CEO agreed to a $26 million judgment and a permanent injunction against misrepresenting financial products.14 The order states the defendants “neither admit nor deny” the allegations, with no finding of loan fraud and no criminal referral.15 Womply maintains that it “facilitated more loans, faster than any other company in the PPP program” and “stands by its decisions to block applications that appeared fraudulent.”

Source: FTC case page and filings. ftc.gov case page · complaint · signed stipulated order. Fuller explainer: Womply & the FTC settlement.

Arbitration & civil litigation

Oto Analytics (Womply) v. Benworth Capital Partners

JAMS No. 1210038203 · D.P.R. No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM · N.D. Cal. Nos. 3:24-cv-03975-AMO & 3:24-cv-04840-AMO · Corrected Final Award June 26, 2024

Womply brought arbitration and federal court actions against Benworth Capital Partners to recover unpaid PPP fees. This was the only fee dispute tried to a decision on the merits. The JAMS arbitrator’s Corrected Final Award, on June 26, 2024, awarded Womply approximately $117.9 million, denied Benworth’s roughly $420 million counterclaim, and found that the lender, not Womply, was the underwriter of record.16 The related federal cases settled confidentially and were dismissed, the last in September 2025. The terms are confidential.

Source: Corrected Final Award (June 26, 2024). JusMundi · Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Fuller explainer: The $117.9M arbitration award.

Notes & sources

Show the 16 source notes
  1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Background ¶3: “Womply terminated the Agreement, as it is expressly permitted to do, because Fountainhead failed to pay Womply over $90 million in fees due under the Agreements.” The motion adds that Womply was “expressly permitted to terminate … access to a technology platform … due to Fountainhead’s failure to pay $90 million in fees to Womply.” Filed Sept. 13, 2021. Seminole County Clerk, No. 2021-CA-002143 ↩
  2. Id., Background ¶4: “On June 15, 2021, Womply commenced arbitration against Fountainhead captioned Oto Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Womply v. Fountainhead SBF LLC, No. 1100-111-808, by filing with JAMS an arbitration demand and statement of claim.” Seminole County Clerk, No. 2021-CA-002143 ↩
  3. Plaintiff’s Verified Petition for Order to Show Cause for Expedited Temporary Injunctive Relief, ¶2: Womply “presently controls access to certain of Fountainhead’s Loan Files.” Filed Sept. 8, 2021. Seminole County Clerk, No. 2021-CA-002143 ↩
  4. Joint Motion to Cancel and Reschedule Hearing, ¶2: “On October 7, 2021, Womply produced a hard drive to Fountainhead, which Womply states contains millions of documents derived from the Teslar technology platform.” Filed Oct. 19, 2021. Seminole County Clerk, No. 2021-CA-002143 ↩
  5. Order to Show Cause for Expedited Temporary Injunctive Relief (entered Oct. 7, 2021): “makes no determination as to the merits of the expedited temporary injunctive relief sought by Fountainhead.” No temporary restraining order or injunction was ever entered, and Womply had produced the loan files (see note 4). The contrary “temporary restraining order” account appears in the 2022 House Select Subcommittee staff report and is contradicted by this docket. Seminole County Clerk, No. 2021-CA-002143 · House staff report (PDF) ↩
  6. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal: Fountainhead “voluntarily dismisses the instant action against Defendant, OTO ANALYTICS, INC. d/b/a WOMPLY, with prejudice, with the agreement of the parties that each party shall bear their own respective attorneys’ fees and costs.” Filed Nov. 18, 2022. Seminole County Clerk, No. 2021-CA-002143 ↩
  7. Memorandum Opinion and Order, Oto Analytics, Inc. v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, No. 3:21-CV-2636-B (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2022) (Boyle, J.). Womply “sent invoices to Blueacorn in July and August 2021 tallying the $76,714,482.67 in fees owed to Womply.” Capital Plus “contends that Womply is an ‘agent’ as that term is defined in SBA regulations, which negates or caps Womply’s recovery for SBA and Technology Fees.” Memorandum Opinion & Order (Justia) · docket (CourtListener) ↩
  8. Id.: “Based on the information before the Court at this stage of litigation, the Court does not find the SBA regulation clearly precludes the collection of a Technology Fee.” The court “GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Capital Plus Defendants’ Motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE counts 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,” leaving Womply’s declaratory-judgment, tortious-interference, fraud, and civil-conspiracy claims to proceed. (A Rule 12(b)(6) ruling, taking the complaint’s allegations as true.) Memorandum Opinion & Order (Justia) ↩
  9. Electronic Order (Nov. 14, 2022): “the parties have settled this case.” Order of Dismissal With Prejudice (Jan. 5, 2023): “All costs will be borne by the party incurring same.” The settlement agreement was not filed; its terms are confidential. docket (CourtListener) ↩
  10. U.S. Small Business Administration, statement on the House Select Subcommittee report (Dec. 8, 2022): “The SBA has immediately suspended non-lenders Blueacorn and Womply, companies that worked with PPP lenders, from working with the SBA in any capacity.” The statement adds that SBA “launched a full investigation of the lenders -- Benworth, Capital Plus, Celtic Bank, Customers Bank, Cross River Bank, Fountainhead, Harvest, and Prestamos.” sba.gov ↩
  11. Id. The SBA calls Womply and Blueacorn “non-lenders … companies that worked with PPP lenders,” not lenders. sba.gov ↩
  12. Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 3:21-CV-2636-B (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2022): “Capital Plus funded 86,521 PPP loans worth over $950 million and received $186,882,948 in Lender Processing Fees for Womply-referred loans.” The SBA paid the loan-processing fees to the lender of record, not to Womply. Memorandum Opinion & Order (Justia) ↩
  13. Federal Trade Commission, press release (Mar. 18, 2024). The case concerned advertising. The FTC cited “product names like ‘PPP Fast Lane’ and promises that loan applications would be prepared within 24 hours and ‘faster than a bank’” and alleged that “more than 60 percent of Womply applications never resulted in funding.” FTC press release (Mar. 18, 2024) ↩
  14. Id.: “Womply and its CEO, Toby Scammell, have agreed to pay $26 million to settle FTC charges”; the settlement “prohibits them from making any deceptive, false or unsubstantiated claims about financial services or products.” FTC press release (Mar. 18, 2024) · stipulated order ↩
  15. The matter resolved the FTC’s allegations without adjudication: the Commission “files a complaint when it has ‘reason to believe’ that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law,” and the stipulated order states the defendants “neither admit nor deny” the allegations. The charges were of deceptive marketing, not loan fraud. FTC press release (Mar. 18, 2024) · stipulated order ↩
  16. JAMS Corrected Final Award, Oto Analytics (Womply) v. Benworth Capital Partners (corrected June 26, 2024): the arbitrator awarded Womply $117,944,228 and rejected Benworth’s roughly $420 million counterclaim. The arbitrator also found the lender, not Womply, was the underwriter of record, with underwriting and good-faith review resting with the lender, consistent with Womply’s contract that it “is not a lender or lender service provider.” The arbitrator excluded the 2022 House Select Subcommittee report as “rank hearsay.” JAMS Corrected Final Award (JusMundi) · Willkie Farr & Gallagher ↩

Quotations are reproduced verbatim from the cited public filings.

← Back to the full documented record

Read more of the record

The $117.9M arbitration award → How an arbitrator upheld Womply’s fees and rejected a $420M clawback. The FTC settlement, explained → Why the 2024 FTC matter was about marketing, not loan fraud. Womply & the government → How Womply reported fraud and supported federal investigations.