What legal grounds were used to sue Trump University and who were the plaintiffs?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Three separate legal tracks drove litigation over Trump University: two federal class-action suits by former students alleging fraud, deceptive advertising and racketeering, and a state civil enforcement action by the New York attorney general alleging unlicensed operations and consumer fraud; those matters were resolved in a $25 million settlement in November 2016 [1] [2]. Early named plaintiffs included individual former students such as Tarla Makaeff and Art Cohen in California class actions; the New York suit was brought by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on behalf of New York consumers [3] [1] [2].
1. Lawsuits framed as consumer fraud and deceptive advertising
The core legal theory in the California class actions was that Trump University misled students through false promises about the program and Donald Trump’s personal involvement, giving rise to claims under state consumer-protection and business-practice laws; federal courts found genuine factual issues on deceptive-practices and misrepresentation claims that prevented summary disposition [1] [3]. Plaintiffs alleged marketing materials and “free events” were bait to upsell costly packages that did not deliver the promised education or access to Trump’s real estate secrets [4] [3].
2. Racketeering and RICO allegations in class actions
At least one plaintiff argued Trump University’s conduct satisfied the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by alleging a pattern of mail and wire fraud organized to extract payments from students; that theory appeared in motions seeking class certification and was reported in contemporaneous legal summaries [4]. These racketeering claims elevated the stakes and framed the program as an “enterprise” run through fraudulent sales tactics rather than a legitimate educational provider [4].
3. State enforcement for unlicensed operations — New York’s case
The New York Attorney General’s suit took a civil-enforcement tack focused on unlicensed education operations and consumer protection violations; that state action sought penalties and restitution on behalf of New Yorkers and complemented the California consumer suits [2]. New York’s approach meant the litigation was not only about private damages but also statutory enforcement against an entity alleged to have operated outside licensing rules [2].
4. Who the plaintiffs were — individuals and government
Lead individual plaintiffs in the California actions included former Trump University students such as Tarla Makaeff (the original plaintiff in the 2010 California suit) and Art Cohen; class actions represented thousands of former enrollees who claimed losses of tens of thousands of dollars each [3] [4]. The New York suit was brought by Attorney General Eric Schneiderman representing the state’s consumers; collectively the litigation combined private plaintiffs and public prosecutors [2].
5. How the cases concluded — a consolidated civil settlement
Rather than several separate trials, the major Trump University matters concluded with a $25 million settlement announced in November 2016 that covered the two California class actions and the New York Attorney General’s case; about $21 million went to class participants, roughly $3 million to New Yorkers not covered by the class, and up to $1 million to New York for penalties [1] [2]. Plaintiffs’ lawyers agreed to forgo their fees to maximize recovery for former students, according to reporting [1].
6. What the public record emphasizes and what it does not
Court opinions show judges denied summary judgment on most plaintiff claims and certified at least part of the class, signaling that courts saw triable issues of deception and misrepresentation [1]. Available sources do not mention criminal convictions tied to Trump University in these materials; they document civil suits, class claims, and a monetary settlement [1] [2].
7. Why plaintiffs pursued multiple legal theories
Plaintiffs used overlapping legal strategies—state consumer protection, civil enforcement by a state attorney general, and RICO theories—to pressure settlement and cover different categories of alleged harm: individual restitution, statutory penalties, and broader characterization of the enterprise’s conduct [4] [2]. The mix of private and public plaintiffs increased leverage and created parallel paths to relief, as reflected in contemporary reporting [1] [2].
Limitations: this account relies only on the provided sources; it omits other contemporaneous filings and appellate nuances not included above. Where the cited reporting does not discuss an element, I state that it is not found in current reporting rather than asserting contrary facts [1] [2].