Trump University Deceptive Marketing Class Action Stays Alive

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Last week, a federal judge upheld claims in the class action lawsuit accusing Trump University LLC of using deceptive practices to market its real estate education.

Lead plaintiff Tarla Makaeff alleges in her class action lawsuit that she relied on advertising from Trump University when deciding to enroll in $60,000 worth of seminars that she claims amounted to nothing more than infomercials.

Makaeff further alleges that advertising for Trump U promised that Donald Trump would hand pick instructors for the seminars and included slides with statements from Trump such as, “You’ll learn inside secrets from me” and “This is the next best thing to being my apprentice.”

Makaeff alleges that Trump and Trump University engaged in false advertising and financial elder abuse and asked for an injunction under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act as well as restitution for unfair competition and false advertising.

A main Class and five subclasses divided according to age and location including all consumers who purchased a Trump University live workshop or program was certified in 2014. Trump filed a motion for summary judgment that was denied for the most part by U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel last week.

Trump had argued that since the University had stopped enrolling students, the plaintiff’s claims for an injunction should be dismissed. The plaintiff pointed out that Trump had made claims that be would likely start Trump University again after the class action lawsuit was over and that the University was on hiatus in 2011 and 2012.

Judge Curiel trimmed the plaintiff’s claims for an injunction, ruling that because the plaintiffs named in the class action lawsuit stated that they would not purchase any more seminars or programs from Trump they could not support a claim for an injunction. Specifically, Judge Curiel trimmed the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Judge Curiel retained the other claims made in the Trump University class action including for restitution for unfair competition and false advertising. The judge disagreed with Trump’s argument that he could not be liable for misrepresentations made to the plaintiffs because he did not make them; however, the judge pointed out that the plaintiffs had included advertisements with Trump making allegedly misleading statements.

The judge also ruled that Trump can be held personally liable for the students’ claims for restitution for unfair competition and false advertising because personal liability can be imposed against people who aid and abet in misrepresentations and false advertising.

The judge retained the class action lawsuit’s claims for financial elder abuse, violations of the New York General Business law, and violations of Florida’s Misleading Advertising Law.

A related class action lawsuit was filed in federal court by a plaintiff who claims that Trump misrepresented Trump University “to make tens of millions of dollars” but delivered “neither Donald Trump nor a university.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Amber Lee Eck and Aaron M. Olsen of Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP; Jason A. Forge, Rachel L. Jensen, Thomas R. Merrick, Maureen E. Mueller, and Daniel Jacob Pfefferbaum of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; and Paula M. Roach of Blood Hurst & O’Reardon LLP.

The Trump University False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Makaeff v. Trump University LLC, Case No. 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.