What did the Trump University trial verdict determine about fraud and misleading students?

1. The legal outcome: settlement, not a criminal conviction

Rather than a jury verdict finding criminal fraud, the highest‑profile resolution was a $25 million civil settlement that resolved three major lawsuits including two California class actions and helped avoid a San Diego trial that would have put Donald Trump under oath; the settlement required payout to former students but did not include an admission of wrongdoing by Trump ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

2. Federal and state judges, prosecutors, and filings characterized the program as deceptive

Across the litigation record judges and prosecutors repeatedly described Trump University as having used misleading marketing and “bait‑and‑switch” tactics—Judge Gonzalo Curiel and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman each labeled aspects of the operation fraudulent in court filings and public statements, and Schneiderman said the settlement was a victory for “victims of Donald Trump’s fraudulent university” ^{[1] [2] [7]}.

3. What the lawsuits said students were misled about

Plaintiffs alleged that the program misrepresented key features: that it was an accredited “university,” that students would receive mentorship from instructors hand‑picked or personally vetted by Trump, and that short seminars would unlock private lenders, long‑term apprenticeships or guaranteed credit improvements—claims the AG and multiple court records flagged as false or unproven ^{[7] [6] [8]}.

4. Evidence, legal theories, and more serious allegations pursued by plaintiffs

Class complaints and motions advanced civil fraud theories, including allegations of mail and wire fraud and even RICO‑style racketeering in some filings, arguing a pattern of deceptive conduct and aggressive high‑pressure sales that led students to pay as much as $35,000 for promises the program did not deliver ^{[9] [8] [7]}.

5. What the settlement delivered to students and how courts viewed it

Under the class settlement courts noted that former Trump University students were likely to recover a large share—judges estimated that claimants could receive roughly 80–90 percent of monies spent—while a San Diego judge ultimately approved the $25 million package as fair and an efficient end to protracted litigation ^{[5] [10] [4]}.

6. The defense: no admission and political and tactical framing

Trump and his representatives consistently denied wrongdoing, framed the settlement as a practical compromise reached because Trump was transitioning to the presidency, and emphasized that he would have prevailed at trial; the settlement language reflected that posture—money changed hands without an admission of fraud ^{[3] [8] [4]}.

7. Unresolved questions and continuing civil scrutiny

Although the major class actions settled, New York’s separate civil suit pressed by Schneiderman sought restitution and damages for thousands of students and survived appeals and motions, with courts finding material factual disputes that could require trial resolution—meaning the factual record about who knew what and when remained contested in other forums ^{[6] [11] [12]}.

Conclusion: what the record determined about fraud and misleading students

Taken together, the public record and court statements establish that multiple courts and the New York attorney general found substantial evidence of deceptive marketing and “bait‑and‑switch” practices at Trump University and approved restitution to students, but the matter was resolved through civil settlements rather than a definitive trial finding of criminal fraud or a judicial admission of wrongdoing by Trump himself ^{[1] [2] [5] [3]}.