Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 26 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Counsel 

THOMAS J. WIDOR 

STEPHANIE COX 

ADAM WESOLOWSKI 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mail Drop CC-10232 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-3039 (Widor) 

Facsimile: (202) 326-3768 

Email: twidor@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for the Federal Trade Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., an 

Arizona Corporation; and 

APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP, INC., an 

Arizona Corporation, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF 

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) for its Complaint alleges: 

1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) to obtain temporary, preliminary, and 

permanent injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 

of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for 

1 
 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 2 of 26 

Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

45(a). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1337(a), and 1345. This action arises under 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 53(b). 

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), 

(c)(2), and (d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 

PLAINTIFF 

4. Plaintiff FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government 

created by statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting 

commerce. 

5. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its 

own attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secure such equitable relief as 

may be appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, 

restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 

U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 1607(c). 

DEFENDANTS 

6. Apollo Education Group, Inc. (“Apollo”), is an Arizona corporation, with 

its principal place of business at 4025 S. Riverpoint Parkway, Phoenix, AZ, 85040. 

Apollo Education Group formerly was known as Apollo Group, Inc. Apollo transacts or 

has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. Apollo is the 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 3 of 26 

parent company of The University of Phoenix, Inc. At all times material to this 

Complaint, with respect to the acts and practices of The University of Phoenix, Inc. that 

are described below, Apollo dominated or controlled those acts or practices, knew of or 

approved those acts and practices, or benefited from those acts and practices. 

7. The University of Phoenix, Inc. (“UOP”) is an Arizona corporation, with its 

principal place of business at 4025 S. Riverpoint Parkway, Phoenix, AZ, 85040. UOP 

transacts or has transacted business in this district and throughout the United States. At 

all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, UOP has 

advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold educational products and services to consumers 

throughout the United States. 

COMMERCE 

8. At all times material to this Complaint, Apollo and UOP (collectively 

“Defendants”) have maintained a substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as 

“commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS PRACTICES 

9. Since at least 2012, Defendants have deceptively advertised the benefits of 

a UOP education. Specifically, through the use of television, radio, and internet 

advertisements and other marketing materials, some of which have been part of the “Let’s 

Get to Work” advertising campaign, Defendants have misrepresented to consumers that: 

(i) UOP’s relationships with companies, such as Adobe, Microsoft, and Twitter, create 

career or employment opportunities specifically for UOP students, and (ii) UOP has 

worked with such companies to develop curriculum. These representations are false or 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 4 of 26 

misleading. 

Overview of Defendants’ Business and Advertising 

10. Apollo operates UOP, a private, for-profit post-secondary educational 

institution, which has approximately 55 campuses throughout the United States. Though 

UOP offers both in-person and online classes, most UOP students attend class 

exclusively online. UOP offers certificate courses and associate, bachelor’s, master’s, 

and doctoral degree programs. 

11. UOP has charged consumers tuition ranging from about $7,400 to $19,400 

per year, depending on the program. 

12. Since 2012, UOP’s net revenue has exceeded $13.5 billion. Apollo, during 

that same time, derived between 78% to 91% of its annual net revenue from UOP. 

13. Apollo and UOP have relied heavily on advertising to attract students to 

UOP, including specific advertisements targeting military and Hispanic consumers. 

Apollo and UOP have spent over $1.7 billion on advertising and marketing between 

fiscal years 2013 and 2015 alone. 

14. Prior to 2012, Defendants’ advertising campaigns for UOP primarily had 

emphasized factors such as flexibility, convenience, online coursework, and 

accreditation. By early 2012, however, Defendants’ market research indicated that this 

advertising no longer differentiated UOP from its competitors, which were touting similar 

benefits. 

15. Additionally, according to SEC filings and internal documents, UOP’s 

enrollment numbers were declining due to increased competition for students. The 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 5 of 26 

average enrollment in degree programs at UOP between 2010 and 2012 dropped from 

approximately 460,900 to 356,900 students. 

16. Many students enrolled in 2012 or 2013 have not yet earned a UOP degree. 

Nearly 62% of first-time students and 80% of non-first time students drop out of UOP 

instead of earning a degree. Further, on average, it takes students enrolled at four-year, 

private, for-profit schools nearly nine calendar years to earn a bachelor’s degree. Indeed, 

according to one internal document involving UOP’s Military Division, “[m]ost 

individuals when thinking of post-secondary education assume it will take 4 years. 

However, if an individual is working full-time or raising a family, it can take up to 14 

years on average!” 

Defendants’ “Let’s Get To Work” Advertising Campaign 

17. In 2012, based on market research, Defendants adopted an advertising 

strategy focused on claims connecting a UOP education with successful career or 

employment outcomes. Defendants’ research showed that many students decide to enroll 

in post-secondary programs because of the potential for career success, including the 

belief that an education will get them a job or a better salary. But Defendants’ research 

also showed that “consumers currently do not consider UOP to be their top choice. . . 

because they do not believe UOP education will provide them the career outcome 

advancements they desire.” 

18. Defendants released a new advertising campaign in late summer 2012 to 

change this perception. Titled “Let’s Get To Work,” the campaign featured numerous 

high-profile corporate employers, such as Microsoft, Twitter, Adobe, and Yahoo!. The 

5 
 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 6 of 26 

overarching goal of the campaign has been to convince consumers that UOP students 

experience career success because of UOP. Specifically, Defendants have represented 

that UOP has worked with companies to create career or employment opportunities for 

UOP students and that UOP has worked with companies, such as Adobe, Microsoft, and 

Twitter, to develop curriculum oriented to the companies’ job needs. 

19. In reality, these companies were not working with UOP or Apollo to create 

job options for UOP students or to develop curriculum. 

20. Instead, Defendants selected companies to feature in their advertisements 

based on desired brand association. The strategy was to focus on “large, stable, 

technology-based, forward-focused companies with great reputations” because these 

companies drove the highest level of prospective student interest. 

“Parking Lot” Television Ad 

21. A copy of an advertisement, known as “Parking Lot,” that Defendants have 

widely disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, on numerous television stations, 

commencing around October 15, 2012, is attached as Exhibit A. A transcript of this 

advertisement is attached as Exhibit B. 

22. Narrated by Phylicia Rashad, known for her television role as Clair 

Huxtable, a successful attorney who balances work with family on The Cosby Show, Ms. 

Rashad’s voice can be heard saying as the ad begins: “Like a lot of things, trying to find a 

better job can be frustrating, so at University of Phoenix we’re working with a growing 

list of almost 2,000 corporate partners, companies like Microsoft, American Red Cross, 

and Adobe, to create options for you.” During this voiceover, a woman driving around a 

6 
 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 7 of 26 

full parking lot looks frustrated at the lack of open spaces. 

23. As Ms. Rashad states that UOP is working with companies “to create 

options for you,” cars are lifted out of parking spaces and company logos for Microsoft 

and American Red Cross appear in the open spots, representing employment for UOP 

students at these companies: 

The driver passes additional, newly opened parking spaces for Avis, MGM Resorts 

International, Hitachi Data Systems, AT&T, and Newell Rubbermaid. 

24. Ms. Rashad concludes by stating: “Not only that, we’re using what we 

learn from these partners to shape our curriculum so that when you find the job you want, 

you’ll be a perfect fit. Let’s get to work.” As she makes this statement, the driver finds a 

space and parks in it: 

7 
 

phoenix.edu/sur:cess I #LetsGetToWork 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 8 of 26 

25. Another version of the “Parking Lot” advertisement that Defendants have 

widely disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, on numerous television stations 

replaced the Hitachi logo with a Twitter logo. A copy of the advertisement is attached as 

Exhibit C. A transcript of this advertisement is attached as Exhibit D. 

26. In reality, the companies referenced in the “Parking Lot” advertisement did 

not have relationships with UOP or Apollo to create job options for UOP students or to 

develop curriculum. Many of the “2,000 corporate partners,” including the specific 

companies referenced in the “Parking Lot” advertisement, were what Defendants referred 

to as “Workforce Solutions” (WFS) partners—companies whose own employees received 

a tuition reduction benefit from UOP in exchange for the companies promoting 

Defendants’ academic programs. 

27. Some companies raised concerns with Defendants that the advertisements 

were misleading. On August 28, 2012, for example, Staples, which had been asked to 

participate in the “Parking Lot” advertisement, questioned: “What is Staples doing as part 

of this program? The [Parking Lot] TV spot makes it sounds [sic] like we are guiding 

curriculum – we just want to make sure we accurately portray our specific role in this 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 9 of 26 

program.” Staples did not participate in the “Parking Lot” ad. 

28. In addition to companies raising concerns, the Senior Vice President 

responsible for UOP’s Workforce Solutions team complained in September 2012 to 

UOP’s Chief Marketing Officer, who led the Let’s Get to Work campaign, that Adobe’s 

placement in the “Parking Lot” advertisement was “smoke & mirrors.” The Senior VP 

explained, “they are not a partner. We may do business with them, but nothing 

academically or PCS [Phoenix Career Services] wise either.” 

29. Notwithstanding the misleading nature of the ads, UOP’s Chief Business 

Operating Officer reported to the marketing team that he had presented the ad campaign 

to the Apollo Board for its review and that the Board was “completely supportive of our 

strategies to differentiate UOPX.” He further “assure[d]” the team that the “Let’s Get to 

Work” campaign had the “total support” of Defendants’ founder, who also was the 

Apollo Board Chairman at the time, as well as his son, who subsequently took over as 

Chairman in December 2012. 

30. In December 2012, the UOP Chief Business Operating Officer admitted 

that using Twitter in the ad campaign had “nothing to do” with the Workforce Solutions 

agreement and “probably never will.” He continued that, while UOP did not have a deal 

with Twitter to co-brand courses, it would work towards obtaining one, and meanwhile 

Twitter was a priority because it “is one of the most recognized brands in the market.” 

The Chief Business Operating Officer stated it was a “[s]imilar story with Adobe.” 

31. Through its PCS program, Defendants received permission to feature 

company logos and to post job listings from some of these companies. Listings in UOP’s 

9 
 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 10 of 26 

career portal were not unique or specifically for UOP students but were widely available 

through other public sources. For example with Twitter, one UOP marketing executive 

directed that the WFS team “go to twitter.com/jobs and hand-select more updated listings 

to post” on UOP’s career portal after noting that UOP had only one new posted job for 

Twitter. When the WFS team declined, the marketing executive personally took “time 

out of [her] schedule tonight/tomorrow to hand-select job listings.” 

“Train Stops” Television Ad 

32. Another advertisement disseminated on numerous television stations as part 

of Defendants’ “Let’s Get To Work” campaign, titled “Train Stops,” is attached as 

Exhibit E. A transcript of this advertisement is attached as Exhibit F. “Train Stops” 

debuted during the Grammys on February 10, 2013. Internal documents indicate that the 

purpose of the “Train Stops” advertisement was to highlight that UOP’s corporate 

partners connect UOP students with meaningful employment opportunities. 

33. As the scene opens inside a subway train, Ms. Rashad states: “At 

University of Phoenix, we know the value of your education is where it can take you.” 

The camera focuses on a female passenger looking up at a station map depicting logos of 

top companies, including Waste Management, the American Red Cross, Methodist 

Hospital System, and Adobe: 

10 
I .',I ' { I ', "'-~ 

~-·~ 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 11 of 26 

34. The station map shows the train arriving at Methodist Hospital System. A 

female voice states, “Now arriving, city hospital,” and a man in medical scrubs and a 

woman in a business suit are shown leaving the train and entering a hospital: 

A blue billboard in the right corner states, “Get your foot in a few thousand doors.” 

35. The advertisement next shows additional company logos, including AT&T, 

and turns to show the female passenger disembarking at her destination. As she does so, 

the voiceover concludes: “Which is why we are proud to help connect our students with 

leading employers across the nation. Let’s get to work.” 

36. A UOP survey designed to gauge how well the ads delivered the intended 

message validated that the advertisement “conveys a compelling message that suggests 

11 
 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 12 of 26 

that an education with UOPX opens doors and that UOPX can help them find jobs with 

specific corporate partners.” 

37. In reality, Apollo and UOP’s relationships with “leading” employers or 

companies, including the corporate partners referenced in the “Train Stops” ad, did not 

create job opportunities for UOP students. UOP merely engaged a third-party provider to 

host an online portal that included job listings from some of these companies. Most, if 

not all, of the job listings were in fact widely available to non-UOP students. 

“Hall of Success” Television Ad 

38. Defendants have widely disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, on 

numerous television stations beginning around July 29, 2013, an advertisement known as 

“Hall of Success,” which is attached as Exhibit G. A transcript of this advertisement is 

attached as Exhibit H. 

39. In the opening scene of this advertisement, the camera zooms in on two 

heavy oak doors that open to reveal a wall covered in gilded frames. Ms. Rashad states: 

“The Hall of Success. Here we honor the proud accomplishments of our students and 

alums.” In each frame is a person and a company logo, representing UOP alumni at 

various top employers such as the American Red Cross, CBS Radio, Microsoft, and 

Yahoo!. 

40. After identifying “Maria Salazar” at the American Red Cross and “Garlin 

Smith” at Yahoo!, Ms. Rashad states: “And for every Garlin, thousands more are hired by 

hundreds of top companies.” As she makes this statement, the camera pans to show a 

vast hall with hundreds of additional gilded portraits: 

12 
Learn more or phocnix.cdu/Ho!lofSucccss 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 13 of 26 

Ms. Rashad concludes: “That’s right. University of Phoenix. Enroll now. We have a 

frame waiting for you.” 

41. UOP’s Chief Marketing Officer described the “Hall of Success” ad as a 

natural follow up to “Parking Lot” and “Train Stops” and their corporate partner 

messaging by associating names and faces with these well-known companies. 

42. In reality, hundreds of top companies did not regularly hire thousands of 

UOP students because of UOP’s relationships. In fact, many UOP students were 

employed by those companies prior to or at the time they attended UOP or were hired 

regardless of their graduation from UOP. 

43. For example, an alumnus depicted in the ad as employed at the American 

Red Cross joined the organization in 1997 and obtained a Master’s degree from UOP in 

2005 while already working at the American Red Cross for nearly eight years. 

44. Indeed, Defendants knew that many UOP students or graduates were 

already working at their respective companies before enrolling in UOP and that UOP’s 

relationship was not the reason for their employment at the company. One UOP 

13 
 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 14 of 26 

employee observed that, contrary to the hiring claims made in the “Hall of Success” ad, 

many of the alumni “earned their degree while at the company and remained with the 

company after obtaining their degree.” 

Curriculum Radio Ad 

45. In a 2013 radio advertisement, Defendants again touted UOP’s 

relationships with particular companies, representing that these companies worked with 

UOP to design curriculum. The advertisement prominently claimed: 

If you want to know how to get hired, it pays to go right to the source. At 

University of Phoenix we’re talking to companies like AT&T, Sodexo, and 

Adobe about what they’re looking for in future employees. They’re 

helping us shape our curriculum to make sure today’s classes help prepare 

you to pursue tomorrow’s jobs. 

A true and correct copy of the radio advertisement is attached as Exhibit I. A transcript 

of this advertisement is attached as Exhibit J. 

46. In reality, AT&T, Sodexo, and Adobe did not work with UOP to develop 

curriculum that would prepare students for jobs at those companies. 

Internet Ads & Claims 

47. Defendants also have made the deceptive claims about employment 

opportunities and curriculum via digital ads, social media posts, and representations on 

their websites. Defendants disseminated and advertised the “Let’s Get to Work” 

advertisements, including the advertisements described above, on internet sites such as 

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. As a result of these efforts, the advertisements have 

garnered more than a billion impressions on social media channels such as Facebook, 

Twitter, and YouTube. 

14 
+- -> C [ 8 https://www.facebook.com/ universityofphoenix/posts/252153428241026 

Email or Phone Password 

facebook ~ -------- Login  Keep me logged in Forgot your password? 

f_l!III University of Phoenix 0 

1111 October 16, 2012 - ~ 

It's important to have options when planning your career - which is why at 

University of Phoenix we are working with almost 2,000 corporate partners 

to create opportunities for you to find the right flt. 

Corporate Pminerships Shaping Cuniculum - Version 2 

Increasingly, U.S. companies are depending on a highly skilled workforce in order 

to succeed. Untversity of Phoenix provides companies like Microsoft, Americ __ 

YOUTUBE.COM 

146 Likes 2 Comments 

A- Share 

Engllsh (US) - Espar'lol - ~ 

Fran~ais (France) - Portugu9s (Brasil) ~ - Deutsch - Italiano 

Privacy - Terms Cookies Advertising • 

Ad Choices Ct> More · 

Facebook0 2016 

Redacted rm JaaI0111Brs nave M ap slttve e:;pe/l8nc8s. l\'e bllen tDICI 

an on11ne aecree rom UOP 1s useless. rve app11 ea1or manyJoM . onlY neara 

ac:11 rrom a Tew o n11 to oe tol a my aeoree 1sn1 as reoocn1zea or as wortl1J' as 

a dearee trom a traanwnal scnool.l wlsn UOP W<l~la Just Tora~•g y ll1mlent 

loans so I cou1a ao oa.cKto a 1raamona1 unI~ rs1r, ana ao tnls a1I O\i8r aoaln. 

Like Reply O 1 • bru ari I a1 1 •·S, pm ~dited 

ml um,ers1iy or P11oeni!< 0 Hi Daniel, rm real ti oonC11m8a aoout m1s. we ha,,e o·"'r 3000 educational and incfuslry "artnership s and there are 

o·,er 60 0K Phoeni~es who\•e found s.ucoess with their careers on 

L in ecD n: http./Juof.pl,/G 1848TaEK We also have many care er 

re sou rces a\lailable for students an d aJumni on eCamp-us 

(h .u\rnf.ph/61858TaEz~ [ you need assistance, I'm hap py hel p, 

rust let me knawi 

-Ashl er, Com munity IAanager 

Like Repi)' F•br11a r · a• 12"l9p"1 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 15 of 26 

48. For example, on or around October 16, 2012, UOP claimed in a Facebook 

post that UOP is working with almost 2,000 corporate partners to provide job 

opportunities to UOP students and touted “Corporate Partnerships Shaping Curriculum”: 

A true and correct copy of the Facebook post is attached as Exhibit K. 

49. In February 2017, a UOP employee publicly responded in a Facebook post 

to an alumnus who was having difficulty landing a job, expressing “concern” about his 

experience because UOP had “over 3,000 educational and industry partnerships” 

providing career opportunities to UOP students and alumni and “over 600K Phoenixes 

who’ve found success with their careers on LinkedIn”: 

A true and correct copy of the Facebook screen capture with the Facebook user’s name 

and photo redacted is attached as Exhibit L. 

15 
Get your foot in 

a few thousand 

doors. 

With alumni and corporate partners 

across the countly, your degree con lead to many opportunities. 

Lets get to work:-

phoenlx.edu > 

What sets our career services apart 

• Tools to help you discover the abilities you'll need in the field you choose 

• A Job portal with more than 121,000., Job openings 

• Curricula dtveloped in collaboration with Industry leaders to help cult ivate skil ls valued by 

employers 

• The ability to search for companies and connect with recruiters interested in University of 

Phoenix students and alumni 

• Resources .-vailable to students and alumni to strengthen resumes and job-seeking skills 

Some of our Employer Partners: 

~ at&t K HILTON soddo Meth<RliSt 11>< MCU10dist 

W0~LC)\.Vl0£ Hospital System 

II - ~R~ 

~~ ~ 

-- RE'~IC 1lt~~ .~ 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 16 of 26 

50. Similarly, Defendants have featured digital ads and banners on the internet 

representing that their relationships with companies provided students with job 

opportunities. 

A true and correct copy of the advertisement is attached as Exhibit M. 

51. Calling certain companies “Employer Partners,” UOP’s website has 

represented that UOP’s relationships with these companies create employment 

opportunities for students. Defendants also have represented on their website that UOP’s 

curricula was “developed in collaboration with industry leaders to help cultivate skills 

valued by employers.” These claims have been made in proximity to logos of nine 

recognizable companies, including seven Fortune 500 companies. 

16 

. 
Allld3;utoo S1curttyS1oMtMFf(l'-'ltMswc111tys,ar¥US:rct UntHrstty C( PhoanbGcamF4'HS and 11am1111c.rmrs. 

~;:~~~:~x~~=l=:1~~~ :;1~~~:~~~tN~~s:r~=~~~~~~~i2~~&~~:~~~:~~~~~~~=YM~5MS«5F'3r!JolBII 

4)2013 U,1¥,mtty D1'Phtnnb':, Inc.All r1Af11Sr;osm-Wtd. I MIL-rum 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 17 of 26 

A true and correct copy of this webpage is attached as Exhibit N. 

Ads Targeting Current and Former Military Members 

52. Defendants also have made deceptive claims about employment 

opportunities in ads to current and former military members. UOP has been the largest 

recipient of Post-9/11 GI bill benefits since the program’s inception. For example, UOP 

received over $271 million in 2012-2013 alone. 

53. UOP created and disseminated an advertisement around February 21, 2013 

that claimed UOP’s corporate partnerships with companies like AT&T and Allied Barton 

offered hiring programs for UOP students who were veterans: 

A true and correct copy of this advertisement is attached as Exhibit O. 

54. In reality, Defendants’ relationships with these companies did not create 

employment opportunities for UOP students who were current or former military 

members. The companies’ hiring programs were open to all veterans and were not a 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 18 of 26 

result of their status as UOP “corporate partners.” 

Enrollment Advisor Claims 

55. Beginning in or around September 2012, in conjunction with its “Let’s Get 

To Work” advertisements, Defendants rolled out talking points and encouraged 

employees, including enrollment advisors, to communicate these false or misleading 

messages to students and prospective students. 

56. Defendants routinely sent links to the advertisements along with a 

campaign overview to all employees. A one-sheet summary of the campaign talking 

points for Hall of Success included the claim that “Corporate Partnerships” are 

“Providing job opportunities and helping shape our curriculum.” Defendants also tasked 

employees, some dubbed “Phoenix Champions,” with messaging the campaign and 

provided talking points to various UOP teams, including enrollment advisors, academic 

counselors, finance advisors, call center employees, and other student or prospective 

student facing employees. The talking points claimed that UOP’s relationships with 

corporate partners, including many Fortune 500 companies, provided an “inside track” 

and a “competitive advantage to our students.” As proof that these relationships were 

working, Defendants directed employees to claim that alumni were being hired by 

“hundreds of top companies like Microsoft, Yahoo!, American Red Cross and CBS.” 

Additional talking points described the online jobs portal as providing “[a]ccess to unique 

job opportunities and connections exclusive to University of Phoenix Students.” In fact, 

UOP portal listings were not unique or specifically for UOP students but were widely 

available to non-UOP students. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 19 of 26 

57. At Defendants’ behest, UOP enrollment advisors began telling prospective 

students that companies, including Fortune 500 companies, hired UOP students because 

of the school’s partnerships. For example, in March 2013, enrollment advisors 

represented to callers inquiring about UOP that the school has “over 2,000 partners in the 

local area. . . they hire our students first and from there they go on,” and that UOP has 

“over 2,000 corporate partners and national industry partners that are looking specifically 

at University of Phoenix students to hire instead of any other schools.” 

58. Another UOP enrollment advisor represented to a caller who said she was a 

military spouse that “we work with hundreds of companies out there... where we have 

direct relationships.” After specifically citing Microsoft and IBM, he added that UOP’s 

website listed “job opportunities for those companies that we have direct relationships 

with.” The employee further claimed that UOP was working with these companies’ 

executives and “trying to adjust our curriculum. . . so when our students go and interview 

for the job they can say, well, I went to University of Phoenix, I got these competencies, 

and that’s exactly what they are looking for.” 

59. In reality, the companies were not specifically hiring UOP students over 

other candidates and were not working with UOP to develop tailored curricula; the 

partnerships were primarily marketing relationships that did not create jobs or curricula 

for UOP students. 

Claims Regarding Relationships With Corporate Partners 

60. The “Let’s Get To Work” campaign prominently touted that UOP’s 

relationships with companies, such as Adobe, the American Red Cross, Avis, AT&T, 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 20 of 26 

Hitachi, MGM, Microsoft, Newell Rubbermaid, Sodexo, Twitter, and Waste 

Management, create job opportunities specifically for UOP students. 

61. Defendants’ WFS and PCS agreements with these companies did not create 

or provide job opportunities for UOP students. Any benefits from the WFS relationships 

applied to current employees of the companies who would be able to attend UOP at a 

reduced cost. 

62. Moreover, the job opportunities posted for PCS partners were not unique to 

UOP students, and in fact, were widely available on other websites or were simply copied 

by UOP employees into the UOP career portal. 

63. Defendants knew that these relationships were not the reason for UOP 

students’ career outcomes. One UOP employee cautioned that the career message central 

to the campaign should be emphasized when UOP had the “ability to deliver career 

outcomes”—which it did not have. Similarly, a UOP executive warned that “[w]e have 

to be able to deliver what we promise in the ads.” In January 2014, well more than a year 

after the campaign’s launch, UOP’s Vice President of Brand Marketing also 

acknowledged that “[w]e all agree that our current advertising messaging is a bit light on 

support.” 

64. Defendants conducted annual alumni surveys that asked about employment 

outcomes. The 2013 alumni survey showed that approximately 60% of UOP students 

stayed with their same employer after graduation. In fact, the survey found “a significant 

disparity” between alumni expectations for obtaining a new job and the reality of 

obtaining a new job with any company based on a UOP degree. 

20 
 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 21 of 26 

Claims Regarding Curriculum Development 

65. Defendants also have represented that UOP has worked with companies, 

such as Adobe, the American Red Cross, Avis, AT&T, MGM, Microsoft, Newell 

Rubbermaid, Sodexo, and Twitter, to develop curriculum. 

66. In reality, these companies did not work with Defendants to develop 

curriculum. 

67. In fact, Defendants were aware that the claim was baseless. In November 

2012, a UOP Senior Vice President alerted numerous employees, including UOP and 

Apollo executives, that the “Let’s Get to Work” campaign was creating 

“misconceptions,” including that companies were working with UOP to develop its 

curriculum. The Senior VP explained that UOP is not “working directly with companies 

one at a time and/or creating custom curriculum based upon their needs.” 

68. Similarly, in an October 24, 2012 email chain, Apollo and UOP employees 

discussed how Defendants “have not worked with Microsoft yet,” even though 

Defendants already had begun broadcasting ads, including “Parking Lot,” that claimed 

the company was working with UOP to develop curriculum. 

69. Rather than work with the companies touted in its advertisements, 

Defendants have relied on a list of standard job competencies generated by a third-party 

human resources company. This third-party framework identifies general skills and traits 

(such as “leading and deciding,” “adapting and coping,” and “organizing and executing”) 

associated with particular jobs and industries. Defendants’ employees simply matched 

those general skills and traits with its academic programs. Contrary to what Defendants 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 22 of 26 

promised, this third-party framework does not reflect input from companies, such as 

Adobe, Microsoft, or Twitter, about their specific needs. 

Defendants’ Claims Materially Influenced Consumers 

70. Defendants’ research showed that employment prospects associated with a 

post-secondary education were important factors for many consumers deciding whether 

to enroll at UOP. 

71. While developing the “Let’s Get to Work” campaign, UOP surveyed the 

influence of its advertisements on consumers. According to one survey, “[t]he key 

compelling aspect of th[e] [“Parking Lot”] spot was the communication of UOP’s 

partnership with 1,200 large corporations. These partnerships serve to inspire consumers 

to consider UOP and also served to validate/legitimize UOP as a brand.” 

72. By January 22, 2013, as UOP continued to roll out its “Let’s Get To Work” 

campaign, the UOP Senior Vice President for University Strategy reported to the 

President’s Cabinet (a group of UOP executives advising UOP’s President) that the 

“repositioning of UOPX as connecting education to careers (E2C) appears to be paying 

off. Early results indicate significantly improved conversion rates, but it will take some 

time to see if this boosts retention and ultimately share.” 

73. Another study conducted around May 24, 2013 reported that the “Let’s Get 

to Work” advertising campaign, including claims about “[r]elationships with leading 

employers and a dynamic curriculum designed with their input,” increased the percentage 

of consumers who would consider attending UOP from 12% to 29%. 

74. UOP’s and Apollo’s Boards and executives continued tracking the 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 23 of 26 

campaign’s effectiveness in increasing “consumer consideration” of UOP. 

75. Based on Defendants’ continued use of the practices challenged above after 

learning of the Commission’s investigation; Defendants’ continued heavy reliance on 

advertising to attract students to UOP; and the ease with which Defendants can engage in 

similar conduct; the FTC has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or are about 

to violate laws enforced by the Commission. With respect to conduct that has ceased, 

Defendants retain the ability and incentive to engage in similar conduct. For example, as 

described in paragraphs 70-73, these misrepresentations involve a central motivating 

factor for enrolling in UOP—career success. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

76. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

77. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute 

deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

COUNT I: 

Misrepresentations Regarding Relationships With Corporate Partners 

78. Through the means described in Paragraphs 17-59, Defendants have 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that University of 

Phoenix’s relationships with companies, such as Adobe, Microsoft, and Twitter, create 

career or employment opportunities specifically for University of Phoenix students. 

79. The representation set forth in Paragraph 78 of this Complaint is false or 

misleading. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 24 of 26 

80. Therefore, the making of the representation as set forth in Paragraph 78 of 

this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce in 

violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

COUNT II: 

Misrepresentations Regarding Curriculum Development 

81. Through the means described in Paragraphs 18-37, 45-48, 51, and 55-59, 

Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that 

University of Phoenix worked with companies, such as Adobe, Microsoft, and Twitter, to 

develop curricula. 

82. The representation set forth in Paragraph 81 of this Complaint is false or 

misleading. 

83. Therefore, the making of the representation as set forth in Paragraph 81 of 

this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice, in or affecting commerce in 

violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

84. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a 

result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act. In addition, Defendants have been 

unjustly enriched as a result of their unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief 

by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust 

enrichment, and harm the public interest. 

THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 

85. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to 

grant injunctive and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and 

24 
 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 25 of 26 

redress violations of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the 

exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or 

reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of 

ill-gotten monies, to prevent and remedy any violation of any provision of law enforced 

by the FTC. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), and the Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the 

Court: 

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act by 

Defendants and ancillary relief as may be necessary to avert the likelihood of consumer 

injury during the pendency of this action, and to preserve the possibility of effective final 

relief, including but not limited to a temporary and preliminary injunction; 

B. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to 

consumers resulting from Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act, including but not 

limited to, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, 

and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies; and 

C. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 

additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-05772-ESW Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 26 of 26 

Dated: December 10, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

ALDEN F. ABBOTT 

General Counsel 

/s/ Thomas J. Widor 

THOMAS J. WIDOR 

Email: twidor@ftc.gov 

STEPHANIE COX 

Email: scox@ftc.gov 

ADAM WESOLOWSKI 

Email: awesolowski@ftc.gov 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Mail Drop CC-10232 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-3039 (Widor) 

Facsimile: (202) 326-3768 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

26