A Republican senator launched a new investigation into the leading provider of mortgage borrower credit scores, reiterating prior criticism of a "monopoly" he says proves detrimental to aspiring home buyers. 

Alongside his own investigation into Fair Isaac Corp., more commonly known by the acronym FICO, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., also sent a separate letter to the Federal Trade Commission, requesting it to introduce one of its own. The news was first reported by Politico.

As the lone provider of mortgage credit scores accepted by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for decades, FICO provides borrower scores to an approximately 90% share of lenders, Hawley said, citing the company's own data. Among the subset of first-time buyers, FICO holds an even larger portion of the market.

"Rather than competing on price, FICO has leveraged this market position to impose a pattern of extraordinary price increases," the senator wrote in the FTC letter.   

The rising cost of the FICO score

In making his point, Hawley noted a 16-fold wholesale price increase of its product over five years from 60 cents to the current level of $10, enabled by FICO's dominance in the credit score market. Compared to 2025 when a credit score pull came in at $4.95, the current price is now more than double from last year. 

While purchased by the lender, credit score costs are ultimately borne by borrowers, Hawley claimed, also noting the potential impact of this year's increase would raise them by $500 million in total. 

Under current tri-merge guidelines requiring credit reports be obtained from multiple providers, lenders are also requesting and paying for FICO scores three separate times per borrower, quickly multiplying costs, the letter stated.

"They are especially damaging to first-time homebuyers, who often pay for multiple credit checks across several loan applications before successfully purchasing a home," Hawley said. 

"Some fail to qualify for a loan, while others never find a home they can afford. As a result, FICO collects substantial revenue from consumers who never close on a home," he continued. 

A request for comment sent to FICO from National Mortgage News regarding Hawley's remarks had not been received prior to article publication.  

In their past defense, though, FICO leaders have argued that the value its scores provide to the lending community far exceeds the price and also makes up just a tiny portion of the costs involved in closing a loan — a claim the Missouri senator tried to refute.  

"The relevant question is not whether the charge is small relative to other fees. Instead, we investigate whether the charge is justified by competitive market forces or is instead an exercise of monopoly pricing power," he said. 

Hawley's letter arrives just a little under a year after he issued a similar request to the Department of Justice and adds fuel to the controversy that erupted last summer when Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte announced he would immediately permit both government-sponsored enterprises to accept credit scores from FICO rival VantageScore.

In disrupting the long-established FICO dominance, Pulte's decision led to heated debates over which score was more valuable as a reflection of borrower creditworthiness. 

Since Pulte's announcement, both providers have also unleashed a wave of strategic pricing moves, with the three leading credit bureaus, who each own a stake in VantageScore, introducing discounts or incentives for lenders to test their product. FICO also rolled out a program that allowed aggregators and resellers to purchase its score directly and bypass the credit bureaus. 

Within the mortgage community, FICO has long had its share of detractors, with industry leaders making no secret of their displeasure over the frequency of price hikes, similarly labeling them as anticompetitive and monopolistic on social media. Two of the industry's leading trade groups, the Mortgage Bankers Association and Community Home Lenders of America, both also regularly criticize Fair Isaac for the impact of its pricing decisions on its members and their customers.

Latest differences between FICO and VantageScore metrics

New data released by both credit scoring enterprises this week reveal some of the divergence between their two metrics. While both showed American consumers on generally solid financial footing, the scores trended in opposite directions. 

Through the end of February, the average VantageScore 4.0 credit metric edged up higher by one point on a monthly basis to 701, driven by improved balance-to-loan ratios and discipline among the strongest borrowers, the provider said.

At the same time, FICO data showed the average consumer credit score at 714, falling two points over the last 12 months, according to the company's biannual insights report. A modest increase in mortgage delinquencies and challenges posed by student-loan repayments applied downward pressure. 

Both providers, though, agreed their respective data suggests a split exists among American consumers, with a significant percentage of households in the best-performing tiers driving up average scores, while others struggle.

The findings are consistent with a K-shaped economy, according to Ethan Dornhelm, head of scores analytics at FICO.  

"The result is a credit market that's both more challenging for some and more rewarding for others — a dynamic that requires more nuanced strategies from lenders," he said.