The Ninth Circuit’s opinion describes a for-profit seminar business that advertised access to Trump’s real-estate expertise. Students alleged misleading promises and expensive upselling. Those allegations led to two California class actions and related New York enforcement litigation. [1]
The parties reached a $25 million global settlement after the 2016 election. The agreement resolved the claims without a liability admission. In 2018 the appellate court affirmed approval over an objector’s challenge concerning opt-out rights; it described the recovery as highly favorable to class members. [1][2]
That ruling is important consumer-redress evidence, but its central legal question concerned settlement approval. It should not be relabeled as a criminal fraud conviction. Equally, the absence of such a conviction does not make the students’ recovery or the marketing controversy imaginary. [1][2]