Trump University: A For-Profit Real Estate Seminar Business That Ended in a $25 Million Settlement

Last updated: 20 November 2025
Status: Settled for $25 million; court approval in 2017; settlement upheld on appeal in 2018. No admission of wrongdoing.

Trump University began in 2005 as a for-profit real-estate seminar enterprise. It advertised premium coaching, mentorship packages and exclusive investment strategies, presenting itself as a pathway to property-market success based on Donald Trump’s personal approach to deal-making. Although the business used the term “university,” it was not accredited, and by 2010 it ceased operations under that name. Years later, following multiple civil lawsuits alleging misleading marketing practices, the enterprise agreed to a $25 million settlement that was finalized in 2017 and affirmed by a federal appellate court in 2018.

Summary

Trump University offered seminars costing a few thousand dollars up to $35,000 for “Gold Elite” mentorship programs. Promotional material claimed instructors were “hand-picked” by Donald Trump and promised access to his investment philosophy. Regulators in New York raised early concerns about the use of the word “university,” and by 2010 the entity rebranded as the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative (TEI).

Litigation followed in New York and California. Plaintiffs alleged that sales tactics relied on aggressive upsells, misrepresentations about instructor qualifications and suggestions of Trump’s direct involvement. Trump denied wrongdoing under oath in 2016 depositions. No court reached a liability verdict: instead, after the 2016 presidential election, the parties negotiated a global settlement. In 2017, Judge Gonzalo Curiel approved the $25 million agreement, and in 2018 the Ninth Circuit affirmed that approval, allowing restitution to move forward.

Background

The business launched during a boom in real-estate investment education. Students were offered three-day workshops, advanced training packages and one-on-one mentorship programs. Marketing emphasized insider access and proprietary strategies. Many students paid large sums based on assurances that the instructors were seasoned professionals with direct ties to Trump’s investment methods.

New York regulators investigated the enterprise for using the term “university” without proper authorization. By 2010, amid regulatory pressure, the business changed its name and structure. Litigation gradually expanded, relying heavily on internal sales scripts, emails and promotional materials obtained during discovery.

Lawsuits and Allegations

New York Attorney General (2013)
The New York Attorney General filed a civil action alleging persistent fraud, unauthorized use of the term “university,” and deceptive practices. The complaint focused on the alleged gap between marketing promises and the content delivered.

California class actions (Makaeff and Cohen)
Two major cases in California federal court alleged deceptive practices, false advertising and misrepresentation. These cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes in the Southern District of California, with Judge Gonzalo Curiel presiding. Discovery produced internal materials that plaintiffs argued demonstrated high-pressure upselling and inflated claims. Trump denied wrongdoing in sworn testimony.

Settlement and Restitution

After Trump’s 2016 election victory, the parties reached a global settlement to avoid trial. On March 31, 2017, Judge Curiel approved a $25 million agreement providing substantial restitution to former students. A lone objector appealed, but on February 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the approval in Simpson v. Trump University, clearing the way for distributions later that year.

The settlement carried no admission of wrongdoing. Payouts were completed after final appellate approval, distributing compensation to thousands of eligible claimants.

Timeline

  • 2005 – Trump University launches

  • 2010 – Rebrands as Trump Entrepreneur Initiative

  • 2013 – New York Attorney General files civil suit; California class actions proceed

  • Nov 2016 – Settlement in principle announced

  • Mar 31, 2017 – Judge Curiel grants final approval

  • Feb 6, 2018 – Ninth Circuit affirms approval

  • 2018 – Payouts distributed to claimants

What Went Wrong

Use of “university” without accreditation
The branding created expectations inconsistent with regulatory requirements for higher-education institutions.

Instructor and involvement claims
Marketing suggested instructors were hand-selected and modeled on Trump’s approach, claims challenged during litigation.

Aggressive upselling
Internal scripts emphasized high-pressure sales tactics and costly upgrades.

Customer dissatisfaction
Plaintiffs argued that seminar content did not reflect the premium pricing.

Regulatory and legal exposure
The combination of branding, marketing promises and business model made the enterprise vulnerable to consumer-protection challenges.

Legacy and Lessons

Trump University remains one of the most prominent civil controversies involving the Trump brand. While the settlement resolved the litigation without an adjudication of fraud, the case demonstrated the legal risks of blending celebrity branding with high-priced education products. It also underscored the importance of transparency, accreditation rules and realistic marketing claims.

For former students, the settlement provided financial redress, though many expressed dissatisfaction with the experience. For analysts, the case stands as an example of the complexities that emerge when marketing, education services and personal branding converge without sufficient oversight.

Sources

Navigation

Return to Homepage
Return to Trump Business Failures Hub