The University of Phoenix's 2019 settlement with the FTC — a then-record $191 million to resolve allegations the company used deceptive advertisements about job placement and corporate partnerships — remains the largest single action in this category, but it is far from the only one. Sollers College and its parent company were separately ordered to cancel $3.4 million in student debt to resolve charges brought by the FTC and the state of New York, illustrating that the same underlying enforcement pattern recurs across institutions of very different scale.DOCUMENTED
- University of Phoenix: $191 million settlement (2019) over deceptive advertising about job placement and corporate partnerships; the FTC has since sent nearly $50 million in direct refunds to more than 147,000 students, and separately helped secure nearly $37 million in additional federal loan forgiveness.
- Sollers College and its parent company: ordered to cancel $3.4 million in student debt in a separate FTC and New York state action.
- The Department of Education's Sweet v. McMahon settlement (formerly Sweet v. Cardona) covers over 200,000 borrowers who filed borrower-defense claims against more than 150 for-profit schools nationwide, entitling class members to automatic loan discharge, payment refunds, and credit repair.
- A 2025 federal policy change — the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed 4 July 2025 — restored stricter 2019 borrower-defense regulations, a shift observers note has made new claims harder to win even as the older Sweet settlement continues to be processed under its original terms.
The three-stage pattern
Across these cases, a consistent three-stage pattern emerges. First, an institution markets outcomes — job placement rates, graduation rates, corporate hiring partnerships — that a subsequent investigation finds were inflated or unsubstantiated. Second, students enroll and take on federal student debt based substantially on those claims, debt that in some cases cannot easily be discharged even in bankruptcy. Third, years after enrollment — sometimes a decade or more — a settlement or federal debt-discharge program provides partial relief, by which point many affected students have already spent years repaying loans for credentials that did not deliver the outcomes originally promised.REVIEWED
Why the lag between harm and relief matters
The multi-year gap between enrollment and eventual relief is itself a significant, under-discussed harm in these cases. A settlement reached years after a student enrolled does not retroactively restore the income, credit standing, or career trajectory that student might have had absent the original deceptive claims — the relief mechanisms available (debt cancellation, partial refunds) address the financial debt directly, but not the broader opportunity cost of years spent pursuing a credential whose value was misrepresented from the outset.
A shifting regulatory landscape
The 2025 policy change restoring stricter borrower-defense regulations is a reminder that the regulatory environment governing this category of relief is not static — the same underlying deceptive-marketing conduct can face very different odds of producing borrower relief depending on which administrative rules are in force at the time a claim is filed, independent of the underlying facts of any individual student's situation.
Sources behind this report
Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.