What evidence did plaintiffs present about 'hand‑picked' instructors and mentorship promises in the Trump University cases?
Executive summary
Plaintiffs in the Trump University litigation presented documentary and testimonial evidence that marketing materials promised students access to Donald Trump’s “hand‑picked” instructors and one‑on‑one Elite mentorships costing up to tens of thousands of dollars, while internal practices and employee testimony showed instructors were independently contracted salespeople paid on commission and that seminars functioned as high‑pressure upsell events [1] [2] [3]. Those allegations were central to class and state‑level fraud claims that ultimately produced a $25 million settlement, though defendants disputed some characterizations and denied liability [4] [5].
1. Promises in advertisements and promotional materials
Plaintiffs pointed to promotional videos and mailers that explicitly represented Donald Trump had “hand‑picked” professors and adjunct professors to teach students his real estate techniques, and that attending a free seminar would expose them to Trump’s own methods and access to elite programs [6] [1] [7]. Those same materials advertised a three‑day in‑person “Fulfillment” seminar that led into offers for “Trump Elite Programs” promising year‑long mentorships with price tags starting around $20,000 and reaching as high as $35,000 [7] [1] [4].
2. Allegations in complaints and class notices
The operative class complaints and long‑form class notices alleged a uniform misrepresentation: that Trump University would teach “Donald Trump’s real estate secrets” through instructors selected by Trump, and that in fact Trump was not substantively involved in curriculum design or instructor selection—allegations the plaintiffs used to justify fraud and consumer‑protection claims across California, New York and Florida [7] [8] [9].
3. Testimony about who actually taught and sold programs
Plaintiffs introduced testimony and reporting characterizing the on‑stage “instructors” as independently contracted, high‑pressure salespeople whose primary incentive was to sign students up for higher‑priced mentorship packages and who were paid on commission rather than as Trump‑selected educators [2] [3] [10]. Internal documents and what plaintiffs called a “PlayBook” were cited to show standardized scripts, room set‑ups and sales techniques aimed at upselling attendees into Elite mentorships rather than delivering substantive, expert‑led coursework [3] [11].
4. The mentorship pitch and the upsell structure
Evidence highlighted a predictable sales funnel: a 90‑minute free seminar functioning as a recruitment pitch, a $1,495 three‑day seminar positioned as the next step, and then the Elite mentorship programs promising individualized coaching for $10,000–$35,000—offers that plaintiffs said were routinely pushed on attendees and rarely delivered as promised [1] [7] [4]. Plaintiffs emphasized that promised one‑on‑one mentorships were often unavailable or provided by coaches lacking the advertised credentials, supporting claims of bait‑and‑switch conduct [7] [10].
5. How courts and the settlement treated that evidence
Federal and state courts found genuine issues of material fact on plaintiffs’ deceptive‑practice allegations, allowing claims to proceed to trial and weighing the significance of the promotional representations and sales practices [5] [11]. Before a full trial resolved all disputed factual issues, the parties reached a global settlement for $25 million to compensate former students, a result plaintiffs and some commentators described as vindication of the misrepresentation claims about hand‑picked instructors and mentorship promises [4] [12].
6. Alternate viewpoints and limits of the public record
Defendants disputed the characterization that Trump personally chose instructors or that all mentorships were false promises; Trump and his lawyers framed the enterprise as a small business that received positive evaluations and argued lawsuits were routine business disputes [5]. The public record assembled by plaintiffs relied heavily on advertising, class notices, internal playbooks and witness accounts; source materials released in litigation established inconsistencies between public representations and internal operations, but detailed proof about every specific instructor’s hiring process or every mentorship interaction is not exhaustively compiled in the cited summaries [8] [3] [11].