TV Flipping Celebrities Endorsed the Coaching. The Profits Never Showed Up.

Zurixx, LLC sold live seminars and telephone coaching promising that ordinary consumers could earn tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a relatively short amount of time by “flipping” or wholesaling real estate using the company's system. According to the Federal Trade Commission and the Utah Department of Commerce, the company bolstered its sales pitch by partnering with television personalities known for home-flipping and renovation shows, using their credibility to convince tens of thousands of consumers to pay thousands or tens of thousands of dollars each.DOCUMENTED

The FTC and Utah's Division of Consumer Protection sued Zurixx and its owners, Cristopher Cannon, James Carlson, and Jeffrey Spangler, in September 2019. A February 2022 settlement permanently banned the defendants from the real estate and business coaching industry and imposed monetary judgments totaling more than $111 million.DOCUMENTED

What the complaint alleges

According to the FTC and Utah's complaint, Zurixx used hard-sell telemarketing tactics to promote the idea that consumers could make tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a short amount of time by flipping or wholesaling real estate through the company's coaching program.DOCUMENTED Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said “preying on struggling Americans with empty promises of quick riches is against the law,” adding that the defendants had been “banned from the coaching business and ordered to return millions to consumers, and those who engage in similar conduct can expect similar consequences.”DOCUMENTED

The role of celebrity endorsements

Partnering with television personalities associated with home-flipping and renovation shows gave Zurixx's pitch a credibility boost that an unaffiliated coaching company could not otherwise claim: consumers watching a home-flipping television program already associate the personalities on screen with real, demonstrated success in the exact business the coaching program promised to teach.REVIEWED Separately from the settlement with Zurixx's own owners, two of the primary real estate celebrities who endorsed the training agreed to their own orders requiring them to pay a combined $1.7 million, reflecting the FTC's position that an endorser's participation in marketing a scheme of this scale carries its own independent legal exposure, separate from the underlying company's liability.DOCUMENTED

Why business coaching schemes recur in this specific form

Real estate investment coaching sits within a broader category of business-opportunity schemes that the FTC has pursued repeatedly over many years, sharing a consistent structural pattern: a seminar or coaching program sold on the promise of a specific, achievable financial outcome — in this case, real estate flipping profits — that in practice rarely, if ever, materializes for the large majority of paying participants, while the company itself profits primarily from the coaching fees rather than any actual real estate transactions.REVIEWED The February 2022 settlement's monetary judgment breakdown, including more than $104.7 million against the corporate defendants alone, reflects the scale of fees the FTC alleges the operation collected relative to what participants actually earned.

Terms of the settlement

Under the settlement, the defendants are permanently banned from marketing or selling any real estate or business coaching programs, and from making misleading earnings claims of any kind going forward.DOCUMENTED They are also barred from using contract terms designed to restrict consumers' ability to review the company's products publicly or to speak with law enforcement agencies about their experience — a provision addressing a separate concern about contractual gag clauses that can suppress the very consumer complaints regulators rely on to identify schemes like this one.DOCUMENTED The FTC has since distributed more than $12 million in refunds to 25,563 affected consumers.DOCUMENTED

Two of the television personalities who endorsed the coaching program separately agreed to pay $1.7 million — a reminder that celebrity endorsers face their own legal exposure, not just the company behind the pitch.

Why the case matters

For consumers considering any investment or business coaching program that leans heavily on celebrity endorsement, the Zurixx case is a reminder that a television personality's on-screen success in an industry does not verify the specific coaching program they are being paid to promote, and that contract terms restricting a buyer's ability to publicly review a program or contact law enforcement are themselves a red flag the FTC has treated as independently actionable, separate from whatever underlying earnings claims the program makes.

Why gag clauses matter beyond this single case

Contract terms that restrict a consumer's ability to leave a public review or discuss their experience with law enforcement serve a specific function beyond ordinary confidentiality: they suppress precisely the kind of early complaint data regulators rely on to identify a problematic business before it grows to the scale Zurixx eventually reached, tens of thousands of consumers and well over $100 million in judgments.REVIEWED A legitimate coaching or investment program has little reason to prevent a satisfied customer from posting a positive review, making a contract clause that broadly restricts any public discussion of the program — positive or negative — a signal worth noting on its own, independent of whatever specific earnings claims accompany the sales pitch.

How the refund process unfolded over several years

The gap between the September 2019 filing of the original complaint and the ongoing refund distributions reported as late as July 2024 reflects the multi-year timeline typical of large-scale business-opportunity cases: identifying and liquidating assets, verifying the eligibility of tens of thousands of individual claimants, and coordinating a joint federal-state settlement all extend the process considerably beyond the initial settlement announcement.REVIEWED Consumers harmed by a scheme of this size should expect that meaningful financial recovery, if it comes at all, may take years to actually reach their mailbox.

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.