XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
NICKLAS A. AKERS
Senior Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL E. ELISOFON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
VIVIAN F. WANG (SBN 277577)
HUNTER H. LANDERHOLM (SBN 294698)
VESNA CUK (SBN 309157)
RACHEL FOODMAN (SBN 308364)
Deputy Attorneys General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5530
Fax: (415) 703-5480
E-mail: Vivian.Wang@doj.ca.oov



Attorneys for The People off/1e State OfCaltfomia

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNLA,

Plaintiff,

ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC, a
California limited liability company;

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, IN C., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through

50, INCLUSIVE

Defendants

 

 

 

FROM FILING FEES
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 6103]

NDO

uy

Case No81:? QM.) 

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES,
PERMANENT INJ UN CTION, AND
OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

Verified answer required pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 446

 

 

ONUI-PUJN

\The People of the State of California (?the People?), by and through Xavier Becerra,
Attorney General, allege as follows:

1. The People bring this action to hold Ashford University, LLC (?Ashford University?)
and its parent company Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (?Bridgepoint,? and, collectively ?Ashford?
or ??Deferidants?) accountable for violating California law.

2. Twelve years ago, Ashford purchased Franciscan University of the Prairies, a small,
Catholic, non-profit university in Clinton, Iowa with an enrollment of about 300 students. With
the school came its valuable accreditation, which unlocked access to federal financial aid funds.
Ashford quickly leveraged those funds to transform tiny Franciscan into an online for-profit
educational empire. By 2012, Ashford University enrolled over 80,000 online students, powering
Bridgepoint to profits of over $120 million that year. To accomplish this feat, Ashford employed
an army of sales representatives who worked in boiler-room conditions. Under intense pressure
to meet unrealistic enrollment quotas, these employees frequently enticed prospective students to
enroll using false promises and faulty information. For example, Ashford made myriad
misrepresentations regarding prospective students? ability to get ?nancial aid; the costs of
attendance; the likelihood that academic credits would transfer into and out of the school; and the
ability of Ashford programs to prepare its students for careers in certain professions. Ashford
also misled investors and the public by in?ating the percentage of working alumni who reported
that their Ashford degree prepared them for their current occupation.

3. Ashford?s misrepresentations were not the actions of rogue employees but the
consequence of the extreme pressure that Ashford exerted on its ?Enrollment Advisers,? also
known as ?University Advisors? or ?Admissions Counselors? (hereinafter, ?Admissions
Counselors?). Admissions Counselors were actually salespeople subject to daily, weekly,
and quarterly numerical targets measuring, among other things, how many calls they
made, how many referrals to prospective students they had secured from current students, how
many applications they brought in, and how many students actually started attending. Ashford
constantly disciplined and terminated Admissions Counselors for failure to meet their enrollment

expectations. Managers goaded their reports to increase their forecast figures and then berated
1

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 





them for falling short, forced Admissions Counselors to stand at their desk when they missed
enrollment targets or until they could get a prospective student on the line, prodded them to make
bets with one another about their numbers, and publicly displayed Admissions Counselors?
numbers. One Admissions manager even saved the key cards of terminated Admissions staff on a
keyring, which she rattled in front of reports to remind them of their obligations to hit their
metrics or else.

4. A supervisor in the Admissions department recalled, had worked in the sales
industry for many years. But Ashford had the most aggressive sales ?oor I have ever seen. . . .
[Admissions Counselors] were pushed hard to make close to one thousand cold calls each week.
Teams had different ways of celebrating whenever anew student was enrolled. Some teams rang
cowbells. Other had plastic hand clappers. In short, the sales ?oor had a true boiler-room
atmosphere, which reminds me in many ways of the boiler rooms portrayed in the movie The
Wolf of Wall Street.?

5. Ashford was aware that its cutthroat sales culture resulted in a troubling frequency of
misconduct. Ashford?s own internal reports reveal that the company identified
misrepresentations at a rate of hundreds per month, or thousands per year, based on audits of less
than five percent of each Admission?s Counselor?s calls. Those audit results suggest that
Admissions Counselors liker engaged in tens of thousands of misrepresentations in a given year.
Ashford failed to address this systemic problem and was lax in disciplining offenders. For
example, one Admissions Counselor was ?agged for 25 violations over an eight?month period,
including repeated misrepresentations regarding financial aid and costs of attendance and the
transferability of credits, and never received more than a written warning or ?discussion memo?
in that time period. And even when Ashford identified a clear misrepresentation, such as
?guarantee?ng a] student?s credits will transfer in to their program,? it often treated the offense as
a ?coachable? moment rather than a formal violation.

6. Prizing profits over accurate advisement, Ashford also failed to implement any policy
to ensure that its staff followed up with students and prospective students to correct whatever

misrepresentations it happened to catch its Admissions Counselors making.
r)



 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



r?l r?z r?x r?t r?l
ItAshford?s misrepresentations harmed students, who, trusting their Admissions
Counselors, enrolled at Ashford and incurred enormous expense, only to discover later that they
owed far more than they had been told, that their degree would take months or years longer to
complete than they had been assured, or that their degree would not advance their career dreams.

8. Because of Ashford?s misrepresentations, its students, many of them low?income,
were often saddled with tuition expenses and other debts they could not afford and would never
have incurred had they known the truth. Its students not only owe billions in federal loans, but
Ashford claims that they also owe hundreds of millions of dollars directly to the school. To
collect that money, Ashford has engaged in aggressive and illegal practices like threatening and
imposing unlawful debt collection fees.

9. The People respectfully request that his Court use its equitable and legal authority to
permanently end Ashford?s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices, to prevent those practices
from recurring, and to restore Ashford?s ill-gotten gains to its victims.

PLAINTIFF

10. Plaintiff is the People of the State of California. The People bring this action by and
through Xavier Becerra, Attorney General. The Attorney General is authorized by Business and
Professions Code sections 17204 and 17206 to bring actions to enforce the Unfair Competition
Law by Business and Professions Code sections 17535 and 17536 to bring actions to
enforce the Fair Advertising Law 

DEFENDANTS

11. Defendant Bridgepoint is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Bridgepoint?s principal place of
business is in San Diego, California in San Diego County. At all times relevant herein,
Bridgepoint has transacted and continues to transact business throughout California, including in
Alameda County.

12. Defendant Ashford University is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the state of California. Ashford University?s principal place of business is in

San Diego, California in San Diego County. At all times relevant herein, Ashford University has
3

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



l??H
r?transacted and continues to transact business throughout California, including in Alameda
County. Ashford University is a wholly?owned subsidiary of Bridgepoint.

13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise,
of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, presently are unknown to the People,
who therefore sue these defendants by their fictitious names. The People will seek leaveito
amend this Complaint to allege the true names of Does 1 through 50 once they have been
ascertained. Does 1 through 50 participated in some or all of the acts alleged herein.

14. Does 1 through 50, their agents, employees, officers, and others acting on its behalf,
as well as subsidiaries, affiliates, and other entities controlled by Does 1 through 50, are referred
to collectively herein as Defendants 1 to 50.?

15. Bridgepoint, Ashford University, and DOE Defendants 1 to 50 are referred to
collectively in this complaint as ?Ashford? and/or ?Defendants.? Whenever reference is made in
this Complaint to any act of ?Ashford? and/or ?Defendants,? that allegation shall mean that each
Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other Defendants named in that cause of action.

16. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants acted as the principal, agent, or
representative of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the acts herein alleged, each
Defendant was acting within the course and scope of the agency relationship with each of the
other Defendants, and with the permission and ratification of each of the other Defendants.

17. At all relevant times, Defendants have controlled, directed, formulated, known,
approved of, and/or agreed to the various acts and practices of each of the Defendants.

18. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any Defendant or
Defendants, the allegation shall mean that the Defendant or Defendants did the acts alleged in this
Complaint either personally or through the Defendant?s or Defendants? of?cers, directors,
employees, agents and/0r representatives acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their
authority.

19. Each Defendant is a ?person? as defined in Business and Professions Code section

17201.

4

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California
Constitution article 6, section 10.

21. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because each Defendant?s principal place
of business is in California and each Defendant otherwise intentionally avails itself of the
California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts
consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

22. The violations of law alleged in this Complaint occurred in the County of Alameda
and elsewhere throughout California.

23. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 393,
subdivision because violations of law that occurred in the County of Alameda are a ?pait of
the cause? upon which the People seek the recovery ofpenalties imposed by statute.

TOLLING

24. Pursuant to valid agreements between the People and Defendants, the parties have
tolled all time limits and time?related defenses, either in law or in equity, including but not
limited to statute of limitations, statute of repose, and the doctrine of laches, relating to claims
that the People might bring against Defendants pertaining to their business operations and
practices. The initial tolling agreement became effective on February 6, 2013 and tolled all such
claims not then expired until February 6, 2014. The tolling agreement was later extended,
pursuant to a continuous series of separately-executed amendments, to February 6, 2015,
February 6, 2016, February 6, 2017, April 6, 2017, July 6, 2017, September 6, 2017, November 6,
2017, and finally, to December 6, 2017.

REPRESENTATIONS AND BUSINESS PRACTICES

25. Bridgepoint is a for-profit company founded in 2004 and based in San Diego,
California.

26. In March 2005, Bridgepoint acquired Franciscan University of the Prairies in Clinton,

Iowa: a non-profit, Catholic school that enrolled about 300 students. Bridgepoint then terminated

5

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 





the school?s affiliation with the Church, rechristened it Ashford University, and transformed it
into a for-profit institution. 9

27. Ashford inherited Franciscan University of the Prairies? accreditation from the Higher
Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools HLC
is a regional accrediting agency that accredits higher education institutions in 19 states, which
include Iowa and cover a geographic span stretching from Arizona to Ohio.

28. Because HLC is an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of
Education, acquiring Franciscan?s HLC accreditation enabled Ashford to access federal financial
aid programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The Title IV financial aid program
includes loans and grants, such as Direct Subsidized and Unsubsidized Icans, Direct Graduate
PLUS Loans, Direct PLUS Loans, Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants, and the Federal Perkins Loan.

29. After obtaining access to federal Title IV funds, Ashford aggressively pursued rapid
enrollment growth in Ashford University?s online programs. At the time that Bridgepoint
purchased it in 2005, Franciscan University of the Prairies had about 332 students, only about 20
of whom were enrolled in the school?s recently-launched online program. By the end of 2011,
just six years later, Ashford University enrolled 83,774 online students, and ranked as the second
largest degree-granting college or university in the country. During that same tirneframe,
Bridgepoint?s annual revenue skyrocketed over one hundred?fold, from $7.9 million in 2005 to
over $968 million in 2012.

30. The vast majority of Ashford?s earnings have come from federally-subsidized Title
IV loans and grants. According to Bridgepoint?s public ?lings, between 2009 and 2016, Ashford
University derived between 80.9 percent and 86.8 percent of its revenues from Title IV funds.

31. After its experience with Ashford, HLC became warier of attempts by for?profit
entities to acquire the accreditation of non-profit schools. then-President, Sylvia Manning,
testified at a 2011 hearing of the United States Senate?s Committee on Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions: ?Now what was wrong in our process and what we have changed is that . . . when

[Franciscan University of the Prairies] was acquired by Bridgepoint, suddenly, Bridgepoint was
6

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



i?1 i?x p?a

accredited, and it grew this enormous superstructure of this enormous online institution. And
because we had pretty much not seen that kind of thing before, we didn?t have the tools that we
now have either to predict that or control that.? Because of its experience with Ashford, HLC
implemented changes to its accreditation process, and, according to Manning, ?[w]hat happened
in 2005 the acquisition of Franciscan University of the Prairies] and then culminated in
growth by 2009 simply could not happen today.?

32. Ashford University eventually obtained accreditation from the Western Association
Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities (WASC), a regional accrediting
agency for schools based in California and other western states. In its initial review of the
school?s application in 2012, WASC noted that Ashford University failed to meet 
standards in half a dozen areas, including student retention and completion, support for student
success, and assuring academic rigor. WASC found, for example, that between about 2007 and
2012, roughly 240,000 new students enrolled, yet 128,000 dropped out in the same period; that
spending on recruitment was ?well above? spending for instructional costs and services, that
Ashford University?s academic structure was ?inadequate;? that coursework was not always
adequately rigorous; and that ?faculty responses to required student posts were often limited to a
few words ofencouragement and lacking in substantive exchange between student and teacher.?

33. Ashford ultimately closed the Iowa ground campus it had acquired from Franciscan
University of Prairies. Ashford University now enrolls new students in online programs. Its
current student body numbers about 43,000.

Ashford University?s Costs, Student Population, and Outcomes

34. Though Ashford touts its affordability when recruiting prospective students, Ashford
University?s online programs in fact cost far more than many alternatives, including many
community colleges and public universities. Online Bachelors degrees at Ashford are currently
expected to cost about $60,390, including tuition and fees, and books and supplies. By contrast,
as examples, the cost of tuition and fees, and books and supplies, for a four-year degree,
based on present rates, is under $36,000 at San Diego State University, and under $33,000 at

California State University-East Bay.
7

 

 

COMPLAINT - PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 





'35. About 68 percent of Ashford students received federal aid in the form of Pell Grants
as of 2016, and many students were the first in their family to attend college. As Ashford
University?s accreditor noted in 2015, the university?s students in the aggregate ?exhibit ?ve of
the seven student risk factors? the United States Department of Education has identified as
increasing the chances a student will ultimately drop out: working full-time while enrolled, being
a single parent, having dependents, being financially independent, and having delayed college
enrollment.

36. Most Ashford University students do not graduate. For example, of Bachelor?s
Degree students who started attending Ashford University between July 1, 2009 and June 30,
2010, 73 percent did not graduate within six years. More recent figures continue the trend: of
Bachelor?s Degree students who started attending Ashford University between July 1, 2014 and
June 30, 2015, only 26 percent are either'actively pursuing their degree or have graduated.

37. The perception that a degree can lead to a better job and wages is one of the main
reasons why students enroll at Ashford University, yet its alumni frequently do not work in the
fields for which they trained at Ashford. According to alumni surveys Ashford conducted in
2009 and 2010, over half of respondents reported being either unemployed or not employed in a
field related to their degree. Yet for a time during the same period, Ashford brazenly stated on its
website, ?How does my degree from Ashford compare to degrees from other schools? Your
degree from Ashford University is equally valuable, accepted, and honorable as any equivalent
degree you could earn from another accredited school or university, whether on a traditional
campus or online. The only difference between a degree from Ashford University and a degree
from another school is the money and time you'll save through Ashford University.?

Ashford?s High-Pressure Sales Culture

38. To grow and sustain enrollment, Ashford built a sales department?disguised as an
admissions office?that exerted extreme pressure on employees to meet enrollment targets and
verbally and abused those who fell short.

39. Until approximately 2011, Ashford compensated Admissions Counselors based on

how many students they enrolled. Those who succeeded in meeting the highest enrollment quotas
8

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNTVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 




CO

earned up to six ?gures. Due to changes in the United States Department of Education?s
regulations, Ashford ceased this practice but ramped up pressure on Admissions Counselors,
threatening them with criticism, write-ups, demotion, and termination for poor enrollment
numbers.

40. One Admissions Counselor described her department in an email to Bridgepoint?s
Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Clark, as a place where employees were ?made to feel
disposable and ?only as good as your last NUMBER enrollment,? and driven to ?just get
[students] in to fulfill [the] high pressured need to enroll so many #5 of students per week and
month.?

41. Other Admissions Counselors and their supervisors describe Ashford?s sales
department as ?toxic,? a ?money grab,? a ?numbers game,? ?grimy,? ?brutal,? a place where
?people were just getting emotionally abused,? ?ruthless,? and one in which people were
constantly ?fighting for theirjobs.? As a result of the ?churn and burn? operation, employees
often left the company within months, either because they were fired for failing to enroll enough
students, or because they resigned due to the pressure and humiliation that permeated the
department. It was also common for Admissions Counselors to cry, suffer mental breakdowns, or
experience stress-related injuries.

42. During Ashford?s highest-growth years, the school typically expected each
Admissions Counselor to make at least 100 calls per day to sales leads. Admissions Counselors
were also expected to enroll at least four to six students in their first month at Ashford, and at
least eight students per month after that.

43. One Admissions manager required her staff to stand at their cubicles as punishment
for failing to meet enrollment targets. Yet Ashford promoted her to higher level management
positions in the Admissions department. I

44. Another Admissions manager, known by the nickname ?Tough Love,? had a keyring
on which she accumulated the key cards of Admissions employees that Ashford fired. She would
rattle the keyring in front of those she supervised to remind them of their obligations to hit

enrollment metrics or else be ?red. One of ?Tough Love?s? reports recalls that when she asked to
9

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 





take time off from work to see a sick relative, ?Tough Love? began ?laying into telling
her, don?t think you should go,? and causing her to break down into tears.

45. To meet enrollment targets, Ashford also utilized peer pressure. For years, each
Admissions team prominently displayed a white board near employee cubicles with the names of
each Admissions Counselor and his or her performance metrics, such as the numbers of
prospective student appointments, applications, and enrollments they had made over a period of
time. Ashford used the white boards as another way to embarrass employees with low numbers.

46. Ashford managers also relied on various forms of competition to keep Admissions
Counselors focused on their numbers. For example, one ran an ?Olympic Games? week in which
she awarded points to her team members based on how many referrals and appointments they
secured from students and prospective students. She also held ?referral raf?es? in which an
employee?s chances of winning depended on how many referrals he obtained. She also ran a
?Guess Who? game in which she displayed her team?s metrics and asked them to guess who had
achieved which numbers. Other Admissions managers goaded Admissions Counselors on their
teams to make bets with one another about their enrollment figures.

47. To foster the sales culture, Asliford had a practice of holding group meetings at the
beginning of each week in which mid-level Admissions managers, known as ?Directors of
Admissions,? had to forecast their teams? enrollments for the week for their bosses, who were
titled ?Divisional Vice Presidents.? During these meetings, the Divisional Vice Presidents often
pressured their Directors of Admissions to increase their goals, cheering and giving high-fives
when the Directors of Admissions gave in and agreed to meet in?ated targets. The Divisional
Vice Presidents then mocked Directors of Admissions who fell short of the unrealistic goals,
questioning their competence and telling them to spend the weekend thinking about whether they
were ?cut out for the job.? According to one former Director of Admissions, because of
Ashford?s pressure tactics, ?you stop thinking of these students as people, you start putting
numbers on people,? and ?[y]our entire day was consumed with a number so that you wouldn?t

get into trouble.?

10

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



HHiFalse or Misleading Statements Concerning Financial Aid and Costs of Attendance

48. In its efforts to lure in prospective students, Ashford systematically made false or
misleading statements about students? ability to obtain federal financial aid and the school?s costs
of attendance. For example, Admissions Counselors commonly told consumers that federal
financial aid would cover all of their costs of attending Ashford University, or that they would
receive certain kinds or amounts of federal financial aid, when the Counselors either had no basis,
or had an insufficient basis, for making those promises. At the same time, Ashford
misrepresented to consumers that it could not determine final financial aid awards until after
enrollment, and then it failed to issue the final awards until it was too late for students to
withdraw without liability. This led many to incur unexpected debts for tuition and fees they
owed due to a shortfall in their final award. In another repeated tactic, Admissions Counselors
enticed consumers by telling them that they could use federal financial aid f0r non-educational
expenses, even though federal law prohibits this conduct. Admissions Counselors also made
numerous other misrepresentations concerning various aspects of financial aid eligibility, a
complex topic on which they were unprepared to provide guidance, as well as the costs of
attending Ashford.

Federal Financial Aid

49. To apply for federal financial aid, a student must complete a ?Free Application for
Federal Student Aid? (FAFSA) and submit it to the United States Department of Education. The
Department of Education uses information on a student?s FAFSA, including information about
the income and assets of a student and perhaps his family members, to assess the student?s ability
to pay for his educational costs in a given school year. In addition to income and asset
information, however, a host of federal rules affect whether a student will receive financial aid
and how much he will receive. For example, there are limits to the amount of federal financial
aid that a student may receive in a given school year that depends on the student?s seniority in
school, and there are also limits to the total amount of federal financial aid that a student may

receive in his or her lifetime.

11

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASI-IFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 






50. Based on the data in a student?s completed FAFSA and the various federal rules,
Ashford determines how much federal financial aid to offer a student. Ashford notifies its
students of the official amounts of federal loans, federal grants, and other financial aid that they
are offered by sending them ??nancial aid award letters.? Unlike other schools, Ashford does not
send financial aid award letters until after a student enrolls, giving Admissions Counselors ample
opportunity to make false forecasts about financial aid in their sales pitches to consumers.

Misrepresentations Regarding Likelihood of Receiving, and Extent of, Financial Aid

51. In one common form of misrepresentation, Ashford told prospective students who
had not yet filled out a FAFSA or received a financial aid award letter that they would not have to
pay any ?out-of?pocket costs,? that they would receive enough ?nancial aid to cover all costs
of attendance, or all costs except books. For example, as documented in one of Ashford?s
?incident reports,? which recorded some of the improper statements made by Admissions
Counselors, one Admissions Counselor falsely told her prospective student, ?You won?t be
enrolled here at Ashford unless your Financial Aid package covers everything. Does that make
sense? We don?t enroll students if they have a shortfall, meaning extra money that they have to
come up with. Does that make sense? We won?t enroll you unless you get a Financial Aid
package that can guarantee you that you?re going to get at least loans or Pell Grant. Does that
make sense to you? So you won?t be given a bill at the end of the year.?

52. Similarly, Admissions Counselors frequently made unwarranted assurances to
consumers that they would receive specific forms of financial aid, including Pell Grants or a
particular amount of aid, before the student had filled out a FAFSA or received his or her
financial. aid award letter.

53. For example, one Admissions Counselor told a prOSpective student, ?Currently right
now, you?re a single mother and you haven?t been working, so you would be, based on that, on
that criteria, full Pell eligible.? The associated incident report shows that Ashford was aware that
this Admissions Counselor had made similar improper promises in the past. He also repeatedly

promised students, incorrectly, that financial aid would cover their entire costs of attending

12

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



Ixkl?! 00 \1 ON Ur U) 

Ashford University. This employee was a ?Lead Admissions Counselor? responsible for training
others in the department.

54. For many consumers, these kinds of misrepresentations made Ashford University
seem more affordable than it actually was. For example, many who were promised Pell Grants
by their Admissions Counselors later learned that they would receive no grant money, or a grant
much smaller than what their Admissions Counselors had indicated. Students ended up owing
Ashford unanticipated out?of?pocket balances, or had to take out more loans than they had
expected.

Misrepresentations Regarding Timing of Financial Aid

55. Ashford also told students and prospective students that final determinations about
financial aid could not be made until after the student enrolled, and it required students to enroll
without first receiving a final financial aid award letter. Ashford then waited until students were
well into their coursework to send the financial aid award letters. In reality, it was possible for
Ashford to make final financial aid determinations prior to enrollment, just as many other
colleges and universities do. Waiting to process financial aid until after enrollment allowed
Ashford to prevent prospective students? ?nancial concerns from getting in the way of
Admissions Counselors? quests to close their sales.

56. Even when students completed all of their financial aid paperwork before they
enrolled, Ashford frequently did not send such students a financial aid award letter until two to
three months after they started classes. Many Ashford University students discovered, upon
finally receiving their financial aid award letters months after enrolling, and contrary to what
Admissions Counselors had represented, that they were not eligible for enough federal financial
aid to cover their entire costs of attending, and that they were liable to Ashford for these
shortfalls. By that point, a student?s options were to withdraw and remain liable for the surprise
shortfalls, or to stay enrolled in Ashford University. As a former Ashford vice president of
financial aid admits, it was often the case that ?you don?t know what you are going to owe until

you?re a quarter of the way through? your classes for the year.

13

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



ADJ

Ur



Misrepresentations Regarding Use of Financial Aid Funds

 

57. Admissions Counselors also courted consumers by telling them that if they received
?nancial aid in an amount greater than Ashford?s costs and fees, they could spend the excess
money on non?educational expenses, like a car or a vacation. Such tactics violate federal law.

For example, one incident report shows that an Admissions Counselor told a prospective student:
?[Y]ou know if all goes well, you might be look[ing] at . . . getting some money back. Right? I
spent my Pell money, my excess money, on things I didn?t need, but it was OK. I went ahead and
got myself a car. You know, I?ll be honest with you. I?m not going to lie. I kind of blew my
money. I didn?t put it back towards my student loans, butl didn?t care at the time. I was like,
?You know what, I deserve to treat myself.? You know, it?s up to you. It?s kind of there for you
and the government?s offering to pay for it.?

58. Another Admissions Counselor told a prospective student: ?Once you get that check .
. . . [i]t?s totally yours. When I was in school, that?s what I did, back when I was in 4?year
school, I would get my stipend check and Iwould set that aside for my summer vacation . . . I was
taking vacations every year andjust using my loan money.? Another Admissions Counselor
emailed his student, ?the pell [sic] will leave you a lot of money left over for you to do what you
want. You are golden!?

59. According to another incident report, an Admissions Counselor ?advised his student .
. . that it was acceptable to use . . . Title IV funds for clearly non educational expenses.? The
Admissions Counselor told his student, ?the rest of your money, the $4,200-4,3 00, that?s your
money. You can do whatever you want to do with it. Like when I went to school, I fixed my car,
I paid rent in advance. I know California rent is kind of expensive, but if you want, you can use
the money to pay off the loans you have now. . . . you can use that money to finish paying off
your loans from the previous loans, or if you have something to do with it, go ahead and do with
it."

60. Still another Admissions Counselor, according to Ashford?s internal ?ndings, referred
to the prospect of receiving excess Title IV funds ?as the primary enticement for enrollment.?

She told a prospective student, ?if you were eligible for the Pell Grant, then what happens is you .
14

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 





are eligible [to] receive funding more than what we would use, so there would be excess funds
available to you that could get sent to you. So by going to school, you could actually get some
money in return. You know what I mean? That would help you out, right now especially.? Just
a few months earlier, that same Admissions Counselor made a similar misrepresentation to
another prospective student, stating, ?Did you know that if you are Pell Grant eligible and you
take out your loans, you don?t have to get anything out of pocket here and you would get money
in your pocket? . . . Do you think this is something that you would rather try? I mean you could
potential [sic] put up to $2,000 in your pocket.?

Other Misrepresentations Regarding Financial Aid and Costs of Attending

61. Ashford also made various other kinds of misrepresentations relating to financial aid
and costs of attending. For example, one incident report shows that an Admissions Counselor
?advised . . . that Ashford University has the lowest tuition among all online universities? and
?stat[ed] that Ashford is the most affordable online school,? assertions that Ashford recognized
were ?not accurate.?

62. Admissions Counselors also encouraged consumers to enrol] even when they knew
the prospective students had ?overlapping loan period[s]? that impaired their ability to secure
federal financial aid for use at Ashford University. In these circumstances, prospective students
had recently used federal financial aid to attend a different school from which they had
withdrawn, which decreased the amount of federal aid they could otherwise obtain for their first
academic year at Ashford University. For a prospective student in this situation, federal aid
would be insufficient to cover all the student?s costs of attending Ashford University for that
academic year. Admissions Counselors knew that students with overlapping loan periods would
be saddled with debt to Ashford. As Ashford?s former vice president of financial aid put it, ?The
student is going to have a gap and we?re knowingly enrolling a student with a gap and
encouraging that.? Even when financial aid employees at Ashford informed the students of such
shortfalls, Admissions Counselors would ?play[] it down like its not a big deal,? ?de-disclosing

it? by saying, ?let?s just get you in a couple courses.? That former Vice president of financial aid

15

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 

IQ



believed this practice resulted in students incurring debt they would be unable to repay to
Ashford, and was ?ridiculous,? ?a big issue,? and ?an ethical issue.?
Misrepresentations Concerning 'l?ransferability of Credits

63. Ashford systematically misrepresented prospective students? ability to transfer credits
from other schools into Ashford University as well as from Ashford University to other schools.

Transfer of Credits into Ashford University

64. Ashford falsely told consumers that their prior credits would transfer into Ashford
University. These representations are important to Ashford?s target market, since many of
Ashford University?s bachelor?s degree students have prior college experience. The number of
credits they can transfer into Ashford University affects the number of credits they must complete
in order to graduate, the amount of federal financial aid for which they are eligible in a given
year, and thus both the time and expense required to earn a degree.

65. For example, Ashford University has advertised that it accepts ?up to 90??0r, during
certain periods, ?up to 99??transfer credits into its bachelor?s degree programs, without any
qualifying information. Other advertisements maintain that Ashford accepts an exceptionally high
number of transfer credits compared to other institutions. Still others make statements such as,
?You can transfer 90 community college credits to Ashford . . . which means that all your past
hard work will not be wasted? (emphasis added), as shown below. Yet Ashford?s articulation
of coursework that Ashford accepts from other schools?reveal that such
advertisements were misleading. For example, articulation agreements with several California
schools clearly list a maximum number of transfer credits that is well below the 90 or 99 that
Ashford advertises.








16

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 

Your past college work is of great value, and atAshlord, that work is recognized. You
can use previous coursework credits or combine coursework with up to 75 non-
traditional credits tor a maximum total of 99 semester credits that you can transfer to
Ashiord University. Learn about the different ways you can transfer in credits:

 
 
    
   
 

Communrt; Colleoe

Regional]: or Approved dried Coursework.
National Testing Pro-grams

iriiliiar-r

Prior Learning Assessment

 
 

 

 
     
   
 

Community College:

Finish your education and earn your degree online from Ashford University thanks to
the innovative 3+1 partnership. Put your community college credits to work atAshtordl
You can transfer 90 community college credits to Ashford including AAS credits which
means Your AA degree may automatically
ful?ll general education requirements at Ashford. Your lower work may be
equivalent to Ashford?s upper division so you won?t have to repeat courses you have

already taken.

The transierabllity of Credits is subject to Ashford University transfer credit policies, and
requires the submisston of of?cial transcripts. The of?cial transcripts will be evaluated
to determine the credits that will of?cially apply toward an Ashford University degree program.

m" .. H. .

     
 
   
 
  
 

  
 
  
 
 

 

 

66. Consistent with Ashford?s written marketing materials, its Admissions Counselors
also routinely implied that all or most of a prospective student?s accumulated credits would
transfer. For example, counselors would tell students that their credits would ?more than likely
transfer,? or even outright promise that a specific range of credits or most credits will transfer,
often adding statements like Ashford University ?accept[s] the most credits of any online
university.? Such assurances were often wrong, and Admissions Counselors often know that they
would very likely be wrong. As one former Admissions Counselor at Ashford explains,
Admissions Counselors did not receive any training regarding how the university evaluated
transfer credits, but Ashford still expected them to make assurances to prospective students about
transfer credits. This Admissions Counselor estimates that eighty to ninety percent of Ashford?s
students received fewer transfer credits upon Ashford?s of?cial determination than what students
were told at the time of enrollment.

67. In reality, Ashford?s own policies gave only its Registrar?s Of?ce the authority to

determine what credits transfer into Ashford. Moreover, the decision about whether particular

17
COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 






prior credits will apply to a student?s degree at Ashford is affected by a number of factors that
Admissions Counselors would be unable to assess on the phone with a prospective student.
According to one employee in Ashford?s Registrar?s Of?ce, it was frustrating that the Admissions
department would ?make false promises to the students and we are stuck cleaning it up and
apologizing for the lies.?

68. Nevertheless, Ashford assured consumers that their credits would transfer well before
it had the information required to make that determination. One Ashford Admissions Counselor
told a prospective student whose prior credits had not yet been evaluated that ?you have an
Associate?s degree, okay, from . . . an accredited school, so we?re looking at no less than sixty
credits, okay? . . . . ]ust know that . . . no less than sixty because you have an Associate?s
degree from a community college.?

69. According to an incident report, an Admissions Counselor ?incorrectly advised his
student . . . that her transfer credits will be accepted, and therefore only has 30 credits left to earn.
The student?s credits have not yet been evaluated by Ashford.? This Admissions Counselor told
his prospective student, ?honestly, um . . . I?m looking at your ?le . . . you?re looking at less than
a year. Actually, about a year, because you?re looking at 30 credits to get your degree. By taking
10 classes here at Ashford, that?s 30 credits right there. You?re only ten classes away . . . That?s
it.?

70. Another Admissions Counselor told a prospective student, know that you have at
least 96 credits that will transfer into [the BA. in Organizational Management] program for sure.?

71. In a related tactic, Admissions Counselors created graphs for prospective students
showing the costs of attending Ashford University. These graphs assumed that all of. a
prospective student?s previous credits would transfer. As a result, they often drastically
understated the student?s total costs.

72. Ashford marketed itself as a school that accepted a high number of transfer credits
and sought to appeal to consumers who had many credits from prior schools. In practice, not only
did Ashford accept fewer credits than promised, but it also delayed making that decision until

after enrollment, ensuring that its prior misrepresentations were not revealed until much later.
18

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 






73. Ashford Admissions Counselors frequently told consumers that they could not obtain
a final credit transfer determination until after they enrolled at the school. Ashford?s website
similarly suggests that final transfer credit evaluations cannot take place before a prospective
student enrolls. In reality, Ashford can accurately assess the number of credits that will transfer
before enrollment, so long as prospective students provide accurate unofficial transcripts.
Admissions Counselors, however, were trained to avoid disclosing this fact to prospective
students whenever possible?closing the sale took precedence over ensuring accurate
expectations.

74. Many students discovered weeks or months into their education that many fewer
credits transferred than they expected. Ashford?s of?cial determinations on what transfer credits
to accept routinely chopped a student?s prior credits in half, or worse, contrary to what
Admissions Counselors portrayed to students.

75. One student, R.B., was repeatedly assured by his Admissions Counselor that, due to
his previous coursework from other schools, he would likely have to take only ten classes, or, in
the worst case scenario, certainly no more than 12 classes 36 credits to complete a
degree at Ashford. Ashford then failed to send R.B. a final transfer credit determination until
about seven weeks after he enrolled. Only then did he learn that he would need to take 17 classes
to graduate from Ashford, at significant additional cost. When R.B. tried to complain, his
Admissions Counselor, who had been. readily available before his enrollment, would not respond
to his calls, nor would other Admissions employees that R.B. attempted to contact.

76. Another student, K.G., was told by her Ashford Admissions Counselor that Ashford
University had the most liberal policy of accepting credits of any school, and that she could
guarantee K.G. that she could not get a better deal on credits anywhere else. Admissions
Counselor told her numerous times that Ashford would accept most of her over 1.00 credits from
the University of Minnesota, so that she could graduate from Ashford University within a year.
Moreover, the Admissions Counselor pressured her into enrolling by claiming that she could not
get a financial aid determination until she was enrolled, and telling KG. that she should trust her

word on the transfer credits. Despite making repeated requests to have a final transfer credit
19

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 






determination as soon as possible, K.G. did not receive her final determination until four weeks
after enrolling. Only then did she learn that Ashford University had accepted only 40 of her
transfer credits.

77. Another student, M.D., was asked by his Ashford Admissions Counselor to send in
his unofficial transcripts from prior schools so that the Admissions Counselor could inform him
how many of those credits would transfer into Ashford University. Based on those unofficial
transcripts, Ashford Admissions Counselor told him that Ashford University would accept
approximately 80 credits. Despite repeated requests to Ashford to complete an official
determination for his transfer credits, Ashford informed him over three months after he enrolled
that his transcripts were still ?pending review? because the registrar?s of?ce was ?running behind
as the work?ow is very heavy right now.? Ashford informed him that its ?ultimate deadline? for
completing an official credit determination was not until the end of a student?s fourth course.
When Ashford finally did complete official transfer credit determination, it accepted only
60 of his previously earned credits; After M.D. appealed this determination, Ashford accepted an
additional three credits, leaving M.D. still far short of the approximately 80 that his Admissions
Counselor had promised.

78. Ashford also made misrepresentations regarding the transfer of credits from ongoing
and future coursework. Ashford University student and Army Reserve veteran P.M. was
deceived by false promises that credits he earned at a community college while attending Ashford
University would transfer to Ashford. Under the Post?9/11 GI. Bill, a veteran typically receives a
higher housing allowance when he attends a ground campus college or university than
when he attends an online program. But Ashford Admissions Counselor told him that he
could take advantage of the higher housing allowance rate under his G.I. Bill benefits by
attending courses at a local community college and Ashford University simultaneously, and that
Ashford would accept the credits from the community college. As RM. approached graduation at
Ashford, he was alarmed to discover that Ashford had capped the amount of credits he could
transfer from his community college and refused to accept some of the courses he had already

completed at the college. P.M. was harmed in at least two ways in addition to the harm of being
20 

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



HHF??Ht?itlied to in the first place. First, because Ashford broke its promise to accept all of the community
college credits, P.M. had to spend additional time in school at Ashford University to make up for
the lost credits under the lower housing allowance. As a result, he also fell behind on his rent,
had to take on another job to keep up with his bills, and his credit score suffered. Second,
because G.l. Bill benefits are not unlimited, he wasted some of his veterans" bene?ts by spending
them on coursework that he was unable to put toward a degree.

79. Ashford?s exaggerations about the number of transfer credits that it accepts meant
that students like R.B., K.G., M.D., and RM. must take significantly more courses at Ashford
than they expected to earn their degree.

80. This practice was lucrative for Ashford, but harmed students, who owed more for
their education than they had expected at enrollment, and who may not have enrolled had they
known the truth. As a former Admissions Counselor explained it, they knew that if students
enrolled based on exaggerated numbers of transfer credits, they could lock the students in at least
thrOugh the first course, and then when Ashford made its decision denying some of those transfer
credits at a later time, the problem was the academic advisor?s and not the Admissions
Counselor?s.

Transfer of Credits out of Ashford University

81. Ashford also systematically misrepresented the extent to which Ashford University
credits can transfer to other universities. Ashford?s Admissions Counselors routinely enticed
prospective students with the promise that Ashford University offers them the ?exibility to study
online at a pace convenient to them, earning credits that they can later apply to other, less
?exible, schools that the student was considering. These representations appeal to prospective
Ashford University students because they may View enrollment at Ashford as a convenient way to
further their educational goals until their schedule can accommodate a program with on-campus

or other in-person requirements.

21

 

 

PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 




AWNHO

82. For years, Ashford falsely stated on its webpage that ?Credits earned at one regionally
accredited university or college? such as Ashford University? ?can readily be transferred to
another regionally accredited university or college,? as shown below. As Ashford admitted in an
internal document, ?When evaluating student?s previous credits/degree for transferability,

accreditation . . . [is] only [one] of many criteria needed to accept classes into a program.?

 

ls Ashford University an accredited school? What is the difference between regional and national accreditation?

Yes. Ashford University is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission otthe North Central Association ofColleges and Schools

Whereas national accreditation is limited only to vocational ortrade schools, regional accreditation denotes a traditional

university that prepares students for advanced degrees. Regional accreditation is important to anyone seetan a degree. because it serves as

the recognized standard used to identify quality in American higher education. 0* edits madame WGMUM
- 

     

 

 

 

83. Similarly, Ashford?s sales team also told consumers that because Ashford University

is regionally accredited, its credits were certain or likely to transfer to other schools. Sometimes
Admissions Counselors assured students that credits generally will transfer to any other school
with regional accreditation. In other instances, Admissions Counselors have stated that Ashford
University credits are accepted at specific schools, such as University of Southern California,
UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, and Harvard. One Admissions Counselor told a
prospective student, ?We are a regionally accredited university. We have the same accreditation
as all the local community colleges in your area, .as well as Fresno and San Diego State. So any
credits you earn can be transferred to them, or even vice versa.? Another stated, went to UC
all of the classes that I took for my general eds there, they?re the same classes that we
have here. So you can be confident that . . . if you want to transfer your degree elsewhere, or if
you want to go and get yoUr Master?s after you pursue your bachelor?s, that your credits are going
to transfer with you.? Yet in one internal document, Ashford stated that these representations are
?inaccurate because it is up to the Registrar?s department of each individual institution to
determine the applicability of transfer credits.?

84. In fact, students who have attempted to transfer their Ashford University credits to
other schools have often found that the other schools will not accept many, or any, of their
Ashford credits. Many students invested a significant amount of time to take courses at Ashford

University and incurred substantial expense or used up some of their Title IV or military
22

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. UNIVERSITY, LLC AND EDUCATION, INC.

 



r?A r?i i?x Hb?l
83:1) [Ur 4: DJ Nr-a 0 k0 GUI A U.) l??O

educational bene?ts based at least in part on Ashford?s representations that its credits would
transfer. They then discovered that they must repeat classes, taking additional time and incurring
additional expense at the school to which they transfer, because that school does not recognize
Ashford credit.

85. One student, P.J., an Army veteran, was told by his Ashford Admissions Counselor
that Ashford would accept most of the over 140 credits he had earned at other institutions, that he
could expect to graduate within about 18 months, and that he would be able to transfer most of his
classes at Ashford to a community college. Instead, PJ. learned while he was taking his second
course at Ashford that Ashford had recognized only about 20 to 30 credits baSed on his military
experience, and it had accepted none of his credits from other schools. PJ. later tried to transfer
his Ashford University credits to two other schools, only to learn that neither of them would
accept any of those credits.

Misrepresentations Regarding Employment Prospects

86. Ashford also made misrepresentations to consumers about careers that Ashford
University degrees would allow them to access. Ashford University?s students and prospective
students typically seek to enhance their employment prospects by attending college. When
Ashford first communicates with a prospective student, he or she often already has a specific
career field in mind. Because it knows that prospective students are often interested in particular
career ?elds, Ashford seeks information about their professional goals and represents that courses
of study will. help prepare students to achieve those goals, even when they will not. Ashford
representatives were instructed to find a way to fit a prospective student?s aspirations into the
school?s programs, even if that program was not a good fit, and Ashford disciplined them if they
failed to do so. Admissions Counselors also often falsely told prospective students that a degree
would qualify them for employment, falsely informed them that they could transfer Ashford
University credits into a credentialing program, or otherwise misrepresented that an Ashford

University degree would help them advance along a certain career path.

23

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 




[Qt?*0

87. One Admissions Counselor, for example, falsely told a prospective student interested
in a culinary career that ?a lot of culinary schools require like [sic] an associate's or bachelor's
degree ?rst.?

88. Another Admissions Counselor told a prospective student that he could become a
biochemist with Ashford University?s Complementary Alternative Health Degree. This degree
does not require a single course in biology or chemistry, but, rather, involves the study of ?the
history and delivery of major non-allopathic health systems including but not limited to the
following: Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, naturopathic medicine, biofeedback, herbal medicines,
chiropractic, acupuncture, acupressure, reiki, re?exology, energy systems, and transpersonal
health such as meditation, hypnosis, and prayer.?

89. When prospective students were under the mistaken impression that a degree would
lead to quali?cation for particular employment, Ashford?s Admissions Counselors would attempt
to avoid discouraging the notion, but rather to build on it and thus further mislead the student.

90. It was particularly common for Ashford Admissions Counselors to misrepresent that
the school?s programs were suitable for careers in the ?elds of social work, teaching, nursing, and
medical billing and coding.

Careers in Social Work

 

91. In California, professionals must hold a clinical social work license if they wish to
direct ?special knowledge of social resources, human capabilities, and the part that unconscious
motivation plays in determining behavior? to ?helping people to achieve more adequate,
satisfying, and productive social adjustments.? Bus. Prof. Code 4996(b), 4996.9. The
prerequisites of the license in clinical social work include obtaining a master?s degree in social
work accredited by the Council on Social Work Education performing two years of
supervised work in the field, and passing a credentialing examination. Bus. Prof. Code
4996.2. Unlicensed practice of clinical social work is unlawful. Bus. Prof. Code 4996(b).
For non-clinical social work positions, a bachelor?s degree in social work is the most common

minimum educational requirement for entry-level positions. In addition, several states prohibit or

24

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 

4:signi?cantly restrict use of the title ?Social Worker? by those not holding at least a 
accredited bachelor?s degree or other bachelor?s degree in social work.

92. Ashford University has never offered a degree program in social work, nor has the
CSWE ever accredited any Ashford University program. Nevertheless, the school has long
advertised that its programs prepare students for social work careers, disregarding licensing
requirements and typical employment criteria. For example, until at least September 2015,
Ashford listed ?Social Worker? as a career outcome of its Bachelor?s Degrees in Education
Studies, Child Development, Early Childhood Education, and Applied Behavioral Science
without disclosing the implications of state licensing or typical entry-level employment
prerequisites.

93. Even after it ceased making that misrepresentation on its own website, Ashford?s
Google advertisements continued to tout that Ashford University has a social work degree and

that its Child Development degree is suitable for prospective students interested in social work:

 

Ashford University? - Interested in Social Work? - Ashfordedu
?251 1* [888) 395-32130

Earn a Child Development Degree Dn?ine.

Transfer Credits

Admissions.

Accreditation
l?r?lilita Bene?ts

 

 

 

 

Ashford University? Onllne - Social Work Degrees Online - ashfordedu

(838} 395-3260

Sehool Comes to You at Ashford. Apply Now and Start Earning Your Degree Oniine!

Apply for Free - Technology Driven- A Career Oriented - Student Centered 100% Oniine
Transfer Credits
List of Degrees

Admissionsi?Financial Aid
Military Bene?ts

 

 

 

94. Ashford also misrepresented the ability of its degrees to lead to careers in social work

during recruiting calls with prospective students. For instance, Admissions Counselors often told

callers interested in becoming social workers that they should enroll in the school?s sociology,

25
COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND EDUCATION, INC.

 

cognitive studies, or early childhood development programs. Admissions
Counselors were not trained on the need for clinical licensure or the fact that those social work
positions not requiring a license typically require a bachelor?s degree in social work, and
consequently failed to disclose these facts to prospective students. Admissions Counselors
instead focused on closing the sale by attempting to steer students into degrees offered by
Ashford University.

Careers in Nursing and Medical Billing

95. Ashford makes similar untrue and misleading claims regarding qualification fer
careers in nursing. Admissions staff have told prOSpective students interested in nursing that
Ashford University programs would help them become nurses when they would not, or attempted
to steer them in the direction of coursework that they said would transfer to nursing programs,
when the courses would not.

96. For example, one incident report noted that an AdmiSsions Counselhr improperly told
a prospective ?student that Ashford?s general education curriculum satis?es the general education
requirements and prerequisites to continue onto a nursing program.? Another Admissions
Counselor improperly ?advised her student . . . that the curriculum for [Ashford University?s]
Health Care Studies would work for her student?s interest in being a Nurse.? When the student
asked, ?Do you all offer like [sic] Nursing curriculum?,? the Admissions Counselor responded,
?You can?t do it. online but we offer the curriculum, which is in Health Care, which is the Health
Care Studies.?

97. Another Admissions Counselor suggested that a prospective student interested in
earning a phlebotomy certificate consider nursing instead, and then claimed misleadingly that
general education credits from Ashford University would later apply to a nursing program. An
internal document about the incident admits that ?the number of classes that can actually transfer
in to another school?s Nursing program is strictly dependent on that school?s transfer policy. The
truth of the matter is that most Nursing programs will only accept 4?7 of [Ashford]?s Gen Ed
courses for transfer credit. This fact often results in students spending more time/money at

[Ashford] without any benefit to their larger academic goals.?
26
COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 

cmxlom-waH




98. Similarly, Admissions Counselors told consumers interested in a career in medical
billing and coding that its health informatics degree will help them achieve that career, despite the
fact that the school?s own internal reports indicate that ?medical coding and billing is not an
outcome of any of Ashford?s programs.?

Careers in Teaching

99. Ashford has also misrepresented to consumers that Ashford University?s online
degrees would enable them to be teachers. Nearly 90 percent of elementary and secondary school
teaching positions are in public schools, and in all 50 states, a teaching certification from the state
is required to teach in public schools in that state, absent exceptional circumstances. While the
requirements for obtaining a teaching certi?cation vary from state to state, most states require the
completion of a state-approved teacher?preparation program. Furthermore, even though private
elementary and secondary school teachers typically are not required by law to hold a certification,
many private school teaching positions require a certification as a matter of school policy.

100. At all relevant times, none of Ashford University?s online degrees have ever been a-
state?approved teaching program. Yet Ashford failed to properly disclose this fact to prospective
students and also made misleading statements designed to make students believe that an Ashford
University degree would be sufficient to work as a teacher. For example, in one advertisement,
Ashford claimed that students who enrolled in its Bachelor of Arts in Organizational Management
coupled with a ?concentration in Elementary Education? ?will possess many of the skills required
to be successful as a professional educator,? with no mention of the fact that the program did not
result in teacher certification.

10]. Ashford stated in another advertisement that a ?popular degree program at Ashford
University is Education. As another generation of teachers prepare for retirement, Ashford is
eager to prepare new educators through their degree concentration. At Ashford, education majors
learn planning of classroom activities, educational school health and safety, as Well
as classroom management. A career as a teacher is one of the most rewarding careers out there,
and that must be why it is such a popular degree at Ashford!? This ad, too, fails to mention that

no Ashford University degree was a state-approved teacher preparation program.
27

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 






102. Ashford?s Admissions Counselors were taught to skirt and avoid the fact that Ashford
University offered no state approved teacher preparation programs when speaking to prospective
students who were interested in becoming teachers. At best, they would only inform prospective
students that a further credentialing program would be required in addition to the Ashford
University degree if the prospective student specifically asked. One former Ashford Admissions
Counselor calls the representations that Ashford made about its teaching program ?bogus.?

103. Ashford also made misleading statements and material omissions in its
advertisements about consumers? ability to become teachers through the ?Educational
Partnership? that Ashford University had between 2009 to 2012 with Rio Salado College, a
community college in Tempe, Arizona. In one online advertisement for the program, for
example, Ashford stated that through this partnership, a student could earn an online Bachelor of
Arts degree at Ashford, and then complete an online teacher preparation program at Rio Salado,
resulting in a and teacher certification half years.? That advertisement,
however, fails to disclose the material fact that the teacher certification available through the Rio
Salado teacher preparation program was specific to Arizona.

104. Mystery shoppers that Ashford hired to test its Admissions Counselors? responses to
questions about the Rio Salado partnership confirm that the school frequently misrepresented the
program. Out of 50 calls in which a shopper posing as a prospective student asked whether the
Rio Salado certification would be valid in his or her state, identifying states other than Arizona,
24 of the calls contained misrepresentations about the ability of the certification to transfer to that
state. For example, when one shopper asked about using the Arizona certification in Connecticut,
the Admissions Counselor ?told the caller not to worry about that? and that ?it would be best to
find out her state requirements for licensing closer to graduation because the regulations change
often.? When another shopper asked about using the Arizona certification in the
Admissions Counselor told the caller that Rio Salado would ?provide an Arizona license and their
staff would assist in converting the certi?cation for the caller?s state,? and that ?Arizona?s
certificates are accepted in most states or there would be minimal requirements for the change

over.? When another shopper asked about using the Arizona certification in Wisconsin, the
28

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 






Admissions Counselor responded ?that Rio Salado was a partner school? and the ?caller would be
able to obtain a teaching certification for the state of Arizona and would then be able to transfer it
to the callers [sic] state.? Another Admissions Counselor told a shopper posing as a Rhode Island
resident that she could transfer the Arizona teaching certi?cate to her state, ?similar to having
your driver?s license transferred when you moved to another state.?

105. Students enrolled under the mistaken belief, based on these false and misleading
claims, that Ashford University?s programs would allow them to teach. These students incurred
expenses and wasted valuable time taking courses at Ashford, only to find out later that Ashford
University?s programs could not lead to a teaching credential and that they would need to pursue
a credential elsewhere.

Job Salary Outcomes

106. Ashford?s Admissions Counselors Were trained to make representations about
nationwide job and salary prospects, using data from sources like Resource Center and
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, without disclosing that actual prospects of Ashford enrollees are
often poor compared to aggregate nationwide statistics.

107. According to the United States Department of Education?s most recent statistics, just
16 percent of enrolled first?time, full-time undergraduate students at Ashford University graduate
within 150% of the anticipated completion time, less than half the national average. Ashford?s
own statistics include those who are not first-time students, but the statistics are little better: for
bachelor?s degree seekers, the most recent six-year graduation rate by Ashford?s methodology is
27%, and the three?year graduation rate for associate?s degree seekers is 10%. For the students
who do graduate, employment prospects are uncertain. In an internal alumni survey conducted in
2010, just 36 percent of alumni agreed that am earning a higher compensation as a direct result
of my Ashford degree,? and 38 percent agreed that ?The degree I received from Ashford has
directly contributed to me getting a better job or promotion.? Students who graduated in the year
of the survey reported that their incomes had increased only $4,546 since enrollment at Ashford
University; the equivalent figure in 2011 was $4,660, and $3,768 in 2012. Meanwhile, the typical

Ashford University student borrower graduates with $34,375 in federal debt, and a loan
29

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 





payment of $355, or $4,260 per year. Just 23% of Ashford University?s student borrowers have
managed to pay even one dollar toward the principal balance of their federal loans within three
years of exiting the school.

108. In another internal survey of Ashford University alumni, 223 (18.7 percent) of 1,191
respondents indicated they were unemployed. Of the 968 employed respondents, 417 (43.1
percent) reported that their current occupation was not in an area related to their Ashford
University degree.

Misrepresentations about Ashford?s Iowa Campus

109. During the time that Ashford maintained its ground campus in Clinton, Iowa, much of
Ashford?s marketing to prospective online students?on its website, in print, and during
telephone sales conversations?emphasized that Ashford University was a traditional four-year,
?brick and mortar? college with a storied history. The result was a coordinated effort to graft the
pedigree of a tiny Catholic university, Franciscan University of the Prairies, onto the brand-new
online behemoth that purchased it. Ashford?s representations concerning the former Franciscan
University of the Prairies campus were false and misleading to prospective students, because in
reality the online university enrolled 99% of all students and was a wholly separate institution
with no history to speak of, separate faculty and staff, and minimal real-world connections to the
Clinton campus.

110. Admissions Counselors themselves believed that emphasizing the ground campus to
prospective online students was ?a facade,? ?total and that ?99 percent of the school had
nothing to do with the historical, accredited school.? Indeed, one former Divisional Vice
President admits that discussing Ashford?s ground campus was ?not pertinent? and ?not germane?
to prospective online students. Nevertheless, according to former Admissions Counselors, they
would ?play up the brick and mortar campus all the time,? using it to distinguish Ashford
University from other for?profit schools, and this sales approach ?worked on people.?

111. By con?ating its predominantly online operations with its relatively miniscule
campus offerings, Ashford aimed to give prospective online students the false impression that

they would receive just as rich an education as campus students did. Indeed, an FAQ page on
30

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



Hi?t
l??O

12

Ashford?s website stated, ?Is the online education degree any different than the one that is earned
on?campus at Ashford University? No. You will receive the same degree and your diploma is
the same as an on-campus 

112. In other marketing materials, Ashford proclaimed that: ?Founded in 1918 as Mount
St. Clare College, Ashford University?s campus is located in Clinton, Iowa, with students who
live in residence halls and support 17 collegiate teams. Students can count on the same high-
quah?ty instruction whether they take their courses on campus or online? (emphases added), as
shown below. Yet around the same time Ashford was disseminating such advertisements, WASC
rejected Ashford University?s initial application for accreditation, citing numerous ways in which
the academic rigor and quality of the university?s online programs fell short of those at the ground

campus.

 

AU [2012! 

?Founded in 1918 as Mount St.
Clare College, Ashford

WEE-IFUPD 

 

- ENS

 

ACCREDITATIONS AND 

 

University?s campus is located in
Clinton, Iowa, with students who
live in residence halls and support
17 collegiate teams. Students can
count on the same high-quality
instruction whether they take their
courses on campus or online."

 

ABOUT ASHFORD

Earn your demur- lwnit- v. ill: 
qu-il Ilnmuv
il?trrs, Ill (0mm: vuu wlulvynu (?urn
Tull! Inn's. l" Inin
nl utililm -. :nul mum sunk-rm;

who have rulmml in Iluvir lives help ir-?mi
Ashl'uni llnivmsih.

 

 

 

. :?t-?nnduvrl lly 'llu- Uighur Learningf,r-Iumissinn and
a mi mlu'v -'1l rlv: leli iulion
n- urg)

($011)
(alumna-Hunt nmuiln-I

- l'm'lirumvtuz at lun-l rm Mannie mrmlumir plan-t

- 
lnetrm'l?uxn in {he lmurml'tl lint-grunt

- buim u'l'np I?llenulh School by 
r?rl :nul lull!

113. Sales personnel were taught to emphasize Ashford?s dormitories and sports teams and

 

tell consumers they could attend commencement exercises at the Iowa campus. Admissions

Counselors and marketing materials stated that Ashford University has existed since 1918 and has

been accredited since 1950.
31
COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



NHt?xr?tr-Ab?At?Ap?Ar?Ar?sb-A


114. Furthermore, training materials instructed Admissions Counselors not to tell
consumers that ?Ashford University is an online university? and instead directed them to state
that ?Ashford University is a traditional university with online degree programs.? In practice,
Admissions Counselors often went even further and told prospective students that Ashford 
University is ?not an online school,? but a ?real,? ?brick and mortar? college with an online
offshoot, and they often contrasted Ashford University with competitor institutions by pointing
out that the competitors lacked traditional physical campuses and long histories.

115. The representations were systematic they were developed and refined by Ashford
through consumer testing. Indeed, the school conducted market surveys to test these
representations, asking respondents which of the following three statements was the most
important to them: ?Even though it?s online, I feel that I?m ?living? a part of the traditional
college experience,? ?Ashford University was established in 1918,? and ?Ashford has a
traditional campus with sports teams.?

116. In reality, there were few connections or similarities between Ashford University?s
ground campus programs and those online. Indeed, findings by Ashford University?s accreditor
highlighted dramatic disparities between the two. In 2012, WASC found that ?while relationships
between the Clinton [Iowa] and San Diego operations are cordial, the integration of the traditional
and non-traditional instructional. systems . . . is not yet fully developed. In many crucial ways the
two quite different models operate largely independent of one another.? In the autumn of 2011,
the Iowa campus employed 56 full-time faculty for its 973 students, whereas the online division
employed just seven full-time faculty for 73,623 students. There was ?variability in expectations
for student attainment and rigor between online and on-ground delivery,? and the ?quali?cations
and workload activities for on-ground vs. online faculty members appear to be inconsistent.?
While ground campus courses stated their ?program learning outcomes? in their syllabi, online
course syllabi did not do so. The ground campus relied on a ?robust advising system? in which
each faculty member had about 30 advisees and had to approve their advisees? course
enrollments. Online students, by contrast, had no such faculty advisor, and online faculty

complained that they were subject to rubrics that ?do not allow for instructor deviation or
32

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 

 innovation using individual talents orjudgement in the class,? and ?reduce[] the role of faculty to
technician and heavily restrain[] the ability of faculty to react to individual student/class needs.?
Misrepresentations in Securities Filings About Job Preparation

117. In its securities filings and other investor communications, Bridgepoint materially
misrepresented the results of surveys assessing how well Ashford University?s programs prepared
its graduates for jobs.

118. In the company?s 2009 Form filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Bridgepoint misrepresented the results of a survey of Ashford alumni. The
company reported that ?99% of working alumni participating in the survey felt their education
prepared them for their current occupation.? These statements dramatically in?ated the true
results of the survey. As the below excerpts from the survey demonstrate, of the 968 respondents
who reported they were employed at least part-time, only a little more than half were working in a
field related to their degree. And it is only that subset of alumni working in a?eld related to their
degree that Ashford asked to respond to the question of how well Ashford prepared them for their
occupations, with 99 percent of that subset reporting their education did prepare them for their
current employment (though about half of them indicated only ?moderately? or so).

But that 99 percent figure represents only approximately 57 percent of all ?working alumni? that
were surveyed (551 out of 968), many of whom worked in fields unrelated to their degrees. In
other words, while Bridgepoint claimed that almost all of its working alumni believed that
Ashford University prepared them for their current occupations, in fact, only approximately 57
percent of such working alumni those working in fields related to their degrees) reported that
their education at least prepared them for their current occupations.

119. In addition, in a 2009 Annual Report published to investors, Bridgepoint dropped the
?working? quali?er from the above claims and stated in two places that ?99% of alumni state that
Ashford University prepared them for their current job? and that ?In Ashford University?s most
recent alumni survey, 99% ofalzunni felt their Ashford University progrzun prepared them for

their current job? (emphasis added). In reality, accounting for the fact that some respondents

33

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 

 00 Ot-U?l UJ 



26
27
2.8

were unemployed and others worked in fields unrelated to their degrees, only 46 percent of all
alumni surveyed?~nowhere close to the 99 percent claimed by Ashford?reported that their

education at Ashford prepared them for their current occupations.

 

4: Which of the following best describes your current employment status?

could only chocse a single response)

 

Response i  Frequency  Count

 

 

Em played full-time (35 or more hours per week) 72.3% 861

 

Empioyed part-time  9.0% 107

 

 

 

 

Not employed 18.7% I 223

 

 

 

 

Valid Responses 1191

 

 

Total Responses 1191

 

 

 

 35

 

10: is your current occupation in an area that is related to your Ashford degree?

9593.5 9931 9125959213319 if 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response id Frequency Count 
Yes  56.9% 551
N0 43.1% 41?
Valld Responses 968
Total Responses 968
 

 

 

10a: How well do you feel your Ashford program prepared you for your current occupation?

(Respondents could only choose a single response)

 

. Mun-?mqum?xyna w.1-wu' .. u. t- o-v

Response 2 

. .v
nun?u. mu Anabavn - - m.

Frequency Count





 

Very well prepared 50.5% 278

 

 

 

Moderately well prepared 39.6% 218
prepared 9.4% 52
unprepared 0.5% 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Valid Responses 551

 

Total Responses 551

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120. Bridgepoint again misrepresented an alumni survey in the company?s 2010 Form 10-
?led the following year, in which Bridgepoth stated, ?in an alumni survey which we
conducted, 99% of working alumni participating in the survey felt their education prepared them

for their current This claim was false for the same reason the claim in
34

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



Nr?tHi?tt-av-ai?xp?AHI?AH


Bridgepoint?s 2009 was false: before calculating the percentage it reported to investors, BPI
excluded a significant percentage of working alumni who reported that their work was unrelated
to their degree.

121. Bridgepoint?s false statements about the surveys are material to investors, students
and prospective students, and the public. A reasonable investor would consider statistics related
to job preparation important in reaching an investment decision with respect to an educational
institution, particularly here where Admissions Counselors often touted Ashford?s online
programs as a way for students to improve their career prospects.

Ashford?s Unfair, Unlawful, and Fraudulent Billing and Collection Practices

122. Ashford not only surprised many students with out-of?pocket liabilities, but also
employed unlawful methods of collecting those liabilities, including by threatening, assessing,
and collecting unlawful collection fees.

Excessive Collection Fees

123. From at least 2009 through 2013, Ashford threatened, assessed, and collected
unlawful debt collection fees from students who owed debt balances to Ashford.

124. During that period, Ashford sent students with delinquent accounts ??nal notice?
emails threatening to refer their accounts to a collections agency imminently. The emails
informed students that unless payment was immediately forthcoming, the account would be
assigned to a collection agency, and students would ?incur collection agency fees up to 33 1/3
percent of [their] balance.? Many students whose accounts were referred to debt collectors found
their balances augmented with the threatened fee, and a significant number of those students paid
their entire balance, including a collections fee equal to up to one?third of their balance.

125. By imposing a collections fee that was a pre-determined fraction of a student?s
account, often one-third, Ashford passed the contingency fee charged by its third-party debt
collectors onto its students. The fixed percentage collections fee structure was calculated to
reimburse the collectors for their efforts to collect on all the accounts that Ashford assigned to it,
including the large majority of accounts where collections efforts were unsuccessful. It was

unlawful for Ashford to impose such collections fees on any student because the fees bore no
35

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



irelationship to the efforts required to collect that particular student?s debt, or to Ashford?s likely
losses due to that particular student?s default. Ashford made no attempt to determine the extent of
those costs or losses on an individualized basis.

126. Ashford University?s enrollment agreements also purported to bind their students to
paying the unlawful collection fees, stating: ?If the University deems it necessary to engage the
services of a collection agency or attorney to collect, or to settle any dispute in connection with,
an unpaid balance on a student account, the student will be liable for all collection agency and/or
attorney fees, reasonable expenses and costs incurred.? By representing to students that their
enrollment in Ashford University made them liable for unlawful collections fees in the event their
accounts ended up in collections, Ashford further violated California law.

Excessive Fees for Bounced Checks

127. Until at least May 2015, Ashford further saddled its students with unlawful liabilities
by imposing excessive bounced check fees. Its enrollment agreements required students to pay an
?Insuf?cient Funds Fee? of $30 if they paid Ashford with a check from a bank account with
insufficient funds. California law capped such charges at $25.

128. By charging students more than $25 for passing checks on insufficient funds, and
representing to students that their enrollment in Ashford University made them liable for unlawful
bounced check fees, Ashford violated California law.

Other Illegal Collections Tactics

129. Ashford also employed other illegal tactics to coerce students to pay their balances to
the school. For example, in 2014, M.W. had withdrawn from Ashford University without
completing a degree, and because Ashford did not timely withdraw her, it attributed several
thousand dollars of outstanding debt to her account. A couple of years later, an Ashford
Admissions Counselor approached M.W. and encouraged her to re-enroll, telling her that ?The
balance you had before with Ashford has been placed with an outside collection agency and the
hold that was preventing you from coming back to school can now be lifted. You still owe the
money but to the collection agency. This way you can get back into school without paying for it

up front and you can finish your degree? (emphasis added). In reliance on the Admissions
36

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



yCounselor?s promises M.W. re-enrolled at Ashford, after re-iterating that she ?cannot afford to
pay cash? for her studies. After M.W. started class, and contrary to the representations that her
Admissions counselor had made prior to enrollment, Ashford demanded that she pay out-of-
pocket for her graduation fee and for transfer credits she received based on Ashford?s evaluation
of her prior life experiences. Furthermore, Ashford also demanded that she use her current
financial aid award to pay down her balance from 2014, in violation of federal financial aid rules.
Because M.W. could not afford to pay out-of?pocket for her transfer credits and graduation fee,

Ashford refused to release her diploma and official transcripts to her.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROF ESSIONS CODE SECTION 17500 (FALSE OR
MISLEADIN STATEMENTS)

130. The People reallege all paragraphs set forth above and incorporate them by reference
as though they were fully set forth in this cause of action.

131. From a date unknown to the People and continuing to the present, Defendants have
engaged in and continue to engage in, aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet, and
conspired to and continue to conspire to engage in acts or practices that constitute violations of
Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq., by making or causing to be made untrue or
misleading statements with the intent to induce members of the public to purchase Defendants?
services, as described in Paragraphs 1?129. Defendants? untrue or misleading representations
include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Defendants? statements regarding consumers? ability to obtain federal financial
aid, including but not limited to Pell Grants;

b) Defendants? statements regarding the costs of attending Ashford University,
including but not limited to the extent to which costs can be covered by financial aid;

c) Defendants? statements regarding the likelihood that credits can be transferred
from other schools into Ashford University, and the likelihood that credits from Ashford

University can be transferred to other schools;

37

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 





d) Defendants? statements regarding the ability of Ashford University programs to

prepare students for careers, including in social work, teaching, nursing, and medical
billing and coding;

e) Defendants? statements regarding its students? employment and salary
prospects;

i) Defendants? statements regarding the relationship between Ashford?s former
ground campus in Clinton, Iowa and its online programs; and

g) Defendants? statements regarding the results-of alumni surveys in its filings

with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other investor communications.

132. At the time the representations set forth in Paragraphs 1-129 were made, Defendants

knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the representations were

untrue or misleading.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEF ENDANTS

VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION CODE SECTION 17200
(UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES)

133. The People reallege all paragraphs set forth above and incorporate them by reference

as though they were fully set forth in this cause of action.

134. From a date unknown to the People and continuing to. the present, Defendants have

engaged, and continue to engage in, aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet, and conspired

and continue to conspire to, engage in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent acts or practices, which
constitute unfair competition within the meaning of Section 17200 of the Business and
Professions Code, as described in Paragraphs 1-129. Defendants? acts or practices include, but

are not limited to, the following:

a) Defendants have violated Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq.,

as alleged above in the First Cause of Action.

b) Defendants engaged in fraudulent acts or practices, including but not limited to

making the statements alleged in Paragraph 131 of the first cause of action above.

38

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 



rDefendants have violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code
section 1770 et seq., by, without limitation, misrepresenting students? ability to transfer
credits into and out of Ashford University, misrepresenting the relationship between
Ashford?s ground campus and online programs, misrepresenting the results of alumni
surveys in Bridgepoint?s securities ?lings, threatening to charge collection fees of up to 33
1/3 percent from students, and threatening to charge fees of $30 for each check drawn on
insufficient funds;

d) Defendants have violated Civil Code section 1671, and the Rosenthal Act, Civil
code section 1788 et seq., by actually charging collections fees of up to 33 1/3 percent from
students;

e) Defendants have violated Civil Code section 1719 by actually charging fees of
$30 for each check drawn on insufficient funds; and

f) Defendants have violated Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq.,
and Corporations Code section 25400, subdivision and section 25401, by falsely
representing the results of alumni surveys in its filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and other investor communications.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the People respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in favor of the
People and against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

1. That Defendants, their successors, agents, representatives, employees, assigns and all
persons who act in concert with Defendants be permanently enjoined from making any untrue or
misleading statements in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500, including,
but not limited to, the untrue or misleading statements alleged in this Complaint, under the
authority of Business and Professions Code section 17535;

I 2. That Defendants, their successors, agents, representatives, employees, assigns and all
persons who act in concert with Defendants be permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair

competition as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200, including, but not

39

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 






21

limited to, the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint, under the authority of Business and
Professions Code section 17203;

3. That the Court make such orders or judgments as may be necessary, including
preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief, to prevent the use or employment by any Defendant of
any practice which violates Business and Professions Code section 17500, or which may be
necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may
have been acquired by means of any such practice, under the authority of Business and -
Professions Code section 17535;

4. That the Court make such orders or judgments as may be necessary, including
preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief, to prevent the use or employment by any Defendant of
any practice which constitutes unfair competition or as may be necessary to restore to any person
in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of
such unfair competition, under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 17203;

5. That the Court assess a civil penalty of $2,500 against each Defendant for each
violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500, in an amount according to proof,
under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 17536;

6. That the Court assess a civil penalty of $2,500 against each Defendant for each
violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, in an amount according to proof,
under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 17206;

7. That the Court assess an additional civil penalty of $2,500 against each Defendant for
each violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, in an amount according to proof,
under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 17206.1 for each violation against
one or more senior citizens or disabled persons as described therein;

8. That the People recover their costs of suit, including costs of investigation;






40

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.

 






9. That the People receive all other relief to which they are legally entitled; and

10. That the Court award such other relief that it deems just, proper, and equitable.

Dated: November 29, 2017

41

Respectfully Submitted,

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California
NICKLAS A. AKERS

Senior Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL E. ELISOFON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

VIVIAN F. WANG

HUNTER H. LANDERHOLM
VESNA CUK

RACHEL FOODMAN
Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Plainti??, the People of the
State of California

 

 

COMPLAINT PEOPLE V. ASHFORD UNIVERSITY, LLC AND BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.