Best Egg Reviews

The conduct described below constitutes potential violations of:
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. §1691
Regulation B (12 CFR §1002)
CFPB prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP)

Relevant state consumer-protection laws

2. Deceptive “Approval” Followed by a Bait-and-Switch

Best Egg explicitly informed me that my loan was approved -- NOT simply pre-approved. Only after receiving this approval did the company impose additional, undisclosed conditions and requirements. This is deceptive because:

The company represented the loan as approved when in fact approval was conditional.
Best Egg induced reliance by stating approval before disclosing obstacles that would later be used to reverse the approval.

This constitutes a bait-and-switch practice, prohibited under federal consumer-protection standards (FTC Act §5, CFPB UDAP principles).

3. Unlawful and Discriminatory Income Verification Practices

I am a private-duty and travel nurse who works with private families. My income is legitimate, substantial, and fully verifiable. I offered to provide:

Bank statements
Deposits and transaction history
Care-provider contracts
Trust income documentation

Pay stubs and other supporting records

Despite this, Best Egg refused all of these forms of income verification and insisted solely on a W-2 from last year, which does not reflect my current income. This violates ECOA and Regulation B, which state:

Lenders must consider any verifiable income, regardless of its source (12 CFR §1002.6(b)(5)).
Lenders may not impose documentation requirements that disproportionately exclude certain lawful forms of employment or income, absent a legitimate business necessity.

Policies that result in a disparate impact on non-traditional workers violate Reg B even if facially neutral.

Best Egg’s policy effectively excludes:

Private-duty nurses
Contract workers
Gig workers

Independent earners

This constitutes unlawful discriminatory impact against applicants who do not receive standard W-2 wages, despite having verifiable income.

4. Unfair, Arbitrary, and Non-Compliant Underwriting
Best Egg’s refusal to evaluate real current income while demanding outdated documents is inconsistent with:
CFPB guidance requiring reasonable verification consistent with actual financial circumstances
Industry-standard ability-to-repay practices
Fair underwriting principles

Demanding a last-year W-2 as the sole accepted documentation — while rejecting all present evidence — is arbitrary and unreasonable.

5. Harm to Consumer

Because Best Egg represented the loan as approved, then imposed new barriers and reversed the approval, I experienced:

Financial harm due to reliance on the stated approval
Unnecessary delays in obtaining funding

Emotional distress and a clear instance of discriminatory treatment based on my profession and income model

6. Requested Regulatory Action / Relief
I respectfully request that the regulator:
Investigate Best Egg’s deceptive “approval” practices and determine whether they violate UDAAP prohibitions.

Review the income-verification policies that appear to unfairly and unlawfully discriminate against non-W-2 earners, in violation of ECOA and Reg B.

Require Best Egg to:

Accept reasonable forms of income verification permitted under Regulation B.
Cease representing applications as approved before imposing additional conditions.

Facilitate a corrective resolution, including the company’s reconsideration of my application using compliant underwriting standards.

7. Desired Outcome
I am requesting:
A regulatory review of Best Egg’s lending practices
Correction of discriminatory and deceptive policies

Reinstatement and proper reassessment of my loan application based on accurate, current income documentation

My goal is a fair, lawful resolution consistent with federal consumer-finance standards.