Is non-admission of guilt the same as innocence?
SONNY Low is a 71-year old San Diego resident, who took the free introductory Trump University seminar. Trump University persuaded Low to pay $1,500 in order to attend another seminar. During the second seminar, Low was told that he needed to have a mentor in order to succeed in real estate.
By buying the Trump Elite program for $25,000, Low was told he would receive his own mentor who would work “side-by-side” with him to create a “customized investment plan.” Later, Low met with his Trump University mentor, and realized that his “mentor” was not knowledgeable in real estate investing. The “mentor” did not create a “customized investment plan” or work “side-by-side” with Low to invest in real estate. Low’s requests for a refund of the monies he paid were refused by Trump University.
Five other persons also had the same experience as Low. They were promised a “complete real estate education,” a “one year apprenticeship,” a one-on-one mentorship, and a “power team” consisting of real estate experts. They did not receive these promises. Instead, students merely received an “infomercial” for additional Trump University seminars or workshops they were told they needed to take to succeed. The “one year apprenticeship” was actually just a three-day seminar. The one-on-one year-long mentorship consisted of a total of six one-hour meetings that did not provide any mentorship. The New York State Education Department had warned Trump it was unlawful to call his program a “university.”
The students sued Trump University and Donald Trump in a class action, alleging violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), the False Advertising Law, Financial Elder Abuse (Trump targeted seniors), fraud, and false promises. The students wanted a full refund of the amounts they paid for the seminars, and they wanted the court to prohibit Trump from falsely its seminars.
California has very specific laws that protect consumers against false advertising. Companies and individuals are prohibited from making statements regarding the sale of goods or services that mislead the public. Federal law also specifically prohibits false ads likely to induce the purchase of food, drugs, devices, cosmetics, or services. A false ad is defined as one that is “misleading in a material respect.” An ad is deceptive if it is likely to mislead reasonable consumers under the circumstances. The test is whether the consumer’s interpretation or reaction is reasonable.
Trump University and Donald Trump deny that they did anything wrong. However, on December 19, 2016, Trump signed an agreement to settle the case and pay $25 million to the more than 6,000 students who claimed to have been misled by Trump University. Even after the settlement, Trump continues to deny wrongdoing. While it is standard practice not to admit guilt, the payment of $25 million is a recognition that a reasonable jury or judge can conclude that the allegations of false advertising are well-founded. Hardly can one ascribe innocence to a “tough” defendant who paid this much money to buy his peace.
False advertising harms the public. The laws on false advertising, as well as the class action remedies, protect consumers. Any misleading or untrue advertising in the sale of goods and services should be aggressively prosecuted in court against anyone in order to deter these unlawful practices.
* * *
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully obtained significant recoveries for thousands of employees and consumers. He is named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, consistently Aselected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.
