Michael E. Tankersley 

Naomi Takagi 

Brian Berggren 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania A venue NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

mtankersley@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-2991 

ntakagi@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3668 

bberggren@ftc.gov 

(202) 326-3229 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Federal Trade Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Grand Canyon Education, Inc.; 

Grand Canyon University; and 

Brian E. Mueller, 

Defendants. 

Case Number: 

COMPLAINT FOR 

PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION, 

MONETARY 

JUDGMENT AND 

OTHER RELIEF 

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission"), 

for its complaint alleges: 

1. The FTC brings this action for Defendants' violations of Section 

5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales 

Rule, as amended, 16 C.F.R. Part 310. For these violations, the FTC seeks 

Page 1 of37 Public Version 
 

 

 

 

 

relief, including monetary relief, a permanent injunction, and other relief 

pursuant to Sections 13(b), and 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

(“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 56(a), and 57b, and Section 6 of the 

Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (the 

“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 6105. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

§§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345. 

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

(b)(2), (c)(1), and (c)(2), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). Defendants reside in and 

transact business in this District. 

PLAINTIFF 

4. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States 

Government created by the FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to 

commence this district court civil action by its own attorneys. 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. The FTC also enforces the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. 

Part 310 (the “TSR” or “Rule”), which prohibits deceptive and abusive 

telemarketing practices. 

DEFENDANTS 

5. Defendant GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC. (“GCE”) is a 

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2600 W. 

Page 2 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

Camelback Road, Phoenix, AZ 85017. GCE stock is publicly traded under 

the trading symbol LOPE. GCE was previously named “Significant 

Education, LLC” and “Significant Education, Inc.” and changed its name to 

GCE in 2008. Through June 30, 2018, GCE owned and operated the 

university known as “Grand Canyon University” as a for-profit institution. 

Since July 1, 2018, as a result of a series of transactions orchestrated by 

GCE and its officers, GCE has been the exclusive provider of marketing 

services for Defendant GCU and receives most of Grand Canyon 

University’s revenue. 

6. Defendant GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY (“GCU”) is an 

Arizona corporation formerly known as Gazelle University. It acquired 

rights to the name “Grand Canyon University” and began using that name in 

July 2018. Its principal place of business is 3300 W. Camelback Road, 

Phoenix, AZ 85017. 

7. Defendant BRIAN E. MUELLER is the President of GCU, and the 

Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and a director of Defendant 

GCE. He directed GCE’s efforts to re-brand the University as a nonprofit, 

and promoted representations that the July 2018 division of operations 

between GCE and GCU resulted in the University returning to operation as a 

traditional nonprofit university. At all times relevant to this Complaint, 

acting alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, 

controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and 

Page 3 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

practices of GCU and GCE, including the acts and practices described in this 

Complaint. 

COMMERCE 

8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, 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 ACTIVITIES 

9. Defendants market postsecondary educational services online and 

through telemarketing. Despite operating the school for the profit of GCE 

and its investors, Defendants have deceptively advertised Grand Canyon 

University as a nonprofit to prospective students. Defendants’ marketing 

activities have also resulted in millions of abusive telemarketing calls to 

consumers who have specifically requested that Defendants not solicit them, 

and to individuals on the National Do Not Call Registry. In addition, 

Defendants have marketed “accelerated” doctoral programs requiring only 

twenty courses (or 60 credits) when, in fact, Grand Canyon University 

requires almost all doctoral students to take many more “continuation 

courses” that add thousands of dollars to the costs. 

GCE’s Creation of Gazelle University 

and Transfer of the GCU Name 

10. In 2004, GCE purchased the assets of a nonprofit college that had 

been operating in Phoenix, Arizona since 1951 under the names “Grand 

Canyon College” or “Grand Canyon University” and began operating the 

school as a for-profit educational institution. GCE became a publicly traded 

Page 4 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

company in November 2008, published business plans for maximizing the 

financial performance of the institution, and solicited investment based on 

the reported and projected profit from GCE’s operation of this institution. 

11. Beginning on or about 2014, GCE and Defendant Mueller 

formulated a plan to transfer the name and some of the assets of Grand 

Canyon University to a new corporation with the goal of characterizing it as 

a nonprofit university. In furtherance of this plan, on November 18, 2014, 

Defendant Mueller, who was at the time the Chief Executive Officer 

(“CEO”) of GCE, chartered a new corporation, named “Gazelle University” 

(later renamed Grand Canyon University, hereinafter “GCU” or “Gazelle 

University/GCU”), under the Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act, A.R.S. 

§§ 10-3101 – 10-11702. 

12. Defendant Mueller also became the President of Gazelle 

University/GCU. In 2017, Defendant Mueller became Chairman of the 

Board of GCE. Since 2017, he has continuously held the offices of CEO of 

GCE, Chairman of the Board of GCE, and President of Gazelle 

University/GCU. Mueller receives salary, bonuses, and other compensation 

from both Defendants GCU and GCE. His compensation includes cash and 

stock incentives that are linked to GCE’s financial performance and are 

explicitly designed to align his interests with those of GCE stockholders. He 

holds GCE stock of significant value. As CEO and Chairman of the Board 

of GCE, Defendant Mueller is GCE’s principal representative in dealings 

Page 5 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with stockholders and reporting to investors on GCE’s financial results and 

prospects. 

13. The articles of incorporation of Gazelle University/GCU represent 

that it is organized and operated exclusively for charitable, religious, and 

scientific purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 

Revenue Code. Notwithstanding these articles of incorporation, Gazelle 

University/GCU was, in fact, organized by GCE and Defendant Mueller to 

advance GCE’s for-profit business and advance Defendant Mueller’s 

interests as officer, chairman, director, stockholder and promoter of 

investment in GCE. Accordingly, Defendant Gazelle University/GCU has 

been operated to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members, 

within the meaning of Section 4 of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. § 44. 

14. On July 1, 2018, GCE executed interrelated agreements that 

resulted in Gazelle University assuming its current name, Grand Canyon 

University. As a result of these agreements, GCE transferred the 

trademarks, campus, and certain assets and liabilities of the institution that 

GCE had operated as “Grand Canyon University,” to GCU in exchange for 

GCU agreeing to pay GCE more than $870 million plus 6% annual interest. 

A “Master Services Agreement” executed as part of this transaction makes 

GCE the service provider for certain essential GCU operations in exchange 

for a bundled fee that is equal to 60% of GCU’s “Adjusted Gross Revenue.” 

15. Since July 1, 2018, pursuant to the Master Services Agreement, 

GCE has been the exclusive provider of marketing for GCU and services 

Page 6 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

related to communicating with prospective GCU students regarding 

applications, program requirements, and financing options. GCE, pursuant 

to the Master Services Agreement, is also the exclusive provider for GCU of 

student support services and counseling, technology (including GCU’s 

platform for online education) and budget analysis services. GCU is not 

permitted to contract with any third party for these services. Since July 1, 

2018, GCE has also been the sole provider of GCU’s student records 

management, curriculum services, accounting services, technology services, 

financial aid services, human resources services, procurement, and faculty 

payroll and training. 

16. The fees GCE receives from GCU are not subject to any limit and 

are not proportionate to GCE’s costs for providing services to GCE. GCE 

receives 60% of GCU’s revenue from tuition and fees from students, 

including 60% of charitable contributions to GCU for payment of student 

tuition and fees. If GCU revenue from these sources increases at a rate 

faster than operating costs, GCE disproportionately benefits from the 

increased revenue. In addition, GCE does not provide services for student 

housing, food services, operation of the GCU hotel conference center, or 

athletic arena, but still receives 60% of the revenue from these operations. If 

GCU revenue from these activities increases, GCE disproportionately 

benefits. 

17. The Master Services Agreement makes it impractical for GCU to 

use any provider other than GCE for essential services. GCU must receive 

Page 7 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

services designated as exclusive from GCE, and if GCU elects to use a third 

party to provide services that are not designated as exclusive to GCE, GCU 

is still obligated to pay GCE the entire bundled fee, equal to 60% of GCU’s 

Adjusted Gross Revenue. As a result of the July 1, 2018 agreements, GCE 

also controls technology and licenses essential to GCU’s online educational 

services. 

18. The transfer of assets and creation of obligations implemented in 

the July 1, 2018 agreements between GCE and GCU benefited the business 

interest of GCE and its stockholders. After the transaction was completed, 

GCE adjusted its bonus compensation standards to pay bonuses totaling 

more than one million dollars to the GCE executives responsible for the 

Master Services Agreement entitling GCE to 60% of GCU’s revenue. 

19. Since July 1, 2018, GCU’s revenue has generated profit for GCE 

and its investors. GCE reports to investors that it has profited, and projects 

that it will continue to profit, from GCU’s obligations to GCE. GCU 

continues to be GCE’s most significant source of revenue. 

20. GCU’s operations since July 1, 2018, are not comparable to Grand 

Canyon University’s operation as a nonprofit prior to 2004, as GCU is 

largely operated by, and most of its revenue is paid to, GCE – the for-profit 

corporation that owned and operated the University from 2004 until July 1, 

2018. 

Page 8 of 37 

Public Version
 

Defendants Have Marketed GCU as a Nonprofit 

21. Beginning shortly after transfer of the “Grand Canyon University” 

name to GCU on July 1, 2018, Defendants began promoting GCU in 

advertising and telemarketing as a private “nonprofit” university and 

disseminated digital and print advertising like the following, 

22. Defendants disseminated the advertisement above and similar 

statements representing that GCU had transitioned back to a nonprofit on 

websites, social media, press releases, video marketing and social media. 

Defendants used claims that GCU is a nonprofit to induce enrollment in 

Page 9 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

GCU, and to induce consumers to provide their telephone numbers and other 

information for the use of GCE telemarketers. 

23. The representations that GCU was a nonprofit 

were material to consumers and 

benefited GCE. 

a. In December 2018, Defendant Mueller, the Chief Executive 

Officer of GCE and President of GCU, stated in an interview that 

the characterization of GCU as a non-profit educational institution 

“is a tremendous advantage . . . We can recruit in high schools that 

would not let us in the past . . . We’re just 90 days into this, but 

we’re experiencing, we believe, a tailwind already just because of 

how many students didn’t pick up the phone because we were forprofit.” 

b. On February 20, 2019, CEO Mueller stated during GCE’s earnings 

call for the fourth quarter of 2018: “[N]ew student online growth 

[after the conversion of Gazelle to GCU] was more than we 

expected and I think it’s evidence that being out there now a 

million times a day saying we’re non-profit has had an impact.” 

Page 10 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. 

November 6, 2019. On that 

date, the Department of Education rejected GCU’s request that it be 

recognized as a nonprofit institution under the Higher Education Act, and 

classified GCU as a for-profit participant in federal education programs. As 

part of the Department’s action on GCU’s application, the Department 

concluded that “GCU must cease any advertising or notices that refer to its 

‘nonprofit status.’ Such statements are confusing to students and the public, 

who may interpret such statements to mean that the Department considers 

GCU a nonprofit under its regulations.” 

25. The Department of Education determined that GCU does not meet 

the “operational test” for nonprofit status “that both the primary activities of 

the organization and its stream of revenue benefit the nonprofit itself.” The 

Department concluded that materials GCU submitted to the Department 

concerning the July 1, 2018 transactions “demonstrate that GCE and its 

stockholders – rather than Gazelle/GCU – are the primary beneficiaries of 

the operation of GCU under the terms of the Master Services Agreement. 

This violates the most basic tenet of nonprofit status – that the nonprofit be 

primarily operated for a tax-exempt purpose and not substantially for the 

benefit of any other person or entity.” 

26. GCU is challenging the Department of Education’s November 6, 

2019 decision. See Grand Canyon University v. Cardona, No. 2:21-cv00177, Order (D. Ariz., Dec. 1, 2022) (ruling the Department of Education 

Page 11 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

lawfully concluded GCU is not nonprofit), appeal pending, No. 23-15124 

(9th Cir.). GCU specifically seeks a declaration that GCU is entitled to refer 

to itself publicly as a nonprofit institution for all purposes. 

Defendants’ Telemarketing 

27. GCU currently has approximately 118,000 students; over 90,000 of 

them are enrolled in online programs. 

28. GCE, in the name of and on behalf of GCU, induces consumers to 

purchase educational services from GCU, including through nationwide 

marketing campaigns. 

29. Defendants use online and social media advertisements, and inperson solicitations, to obtain information about consumers interested in 

educational services, including their name, contact information, and 

interests. Defendants use that information to conduct further marketing, 

including telemarketing. 

30. GCE has hundreds of sales representatives that solicit prospective 

students through a variety of means, including telemarketing. GCE’s 

telemarketers tell prospective students that they are GCU counselors. The 

telemarketers’ duties include describing the central characteristics of GCU to 

prospective students, and the requirements, costs, and projected length of 

GCU educational programs. 

31. GCE has established job “performance metrics” for telemarketers 

that include “Annual Student Counts” that specify the number of consumers 

each telemarketer should enroll and retain. GCE tracks, and its managers 

Page 12 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

regularly review, the number of consumers each telemarketer enrolls, and 

the number of telemarketing calls telemarketers make to fulfill sales 

expectations. Telemarketers who fail to meet GCE’s telemarketing metrics 

are placed on “Corrective Action Plans” that routinely include requiring 

telemarketers to make 80-89 telemarketing calls each day, and to spend three 

to four and a half hours a day on the telephone. Telemarketers that fail to 

comply with Corrective Action Plans are subject to disciplinary action, 

including termination. 

32. 

33. Since July 2018, Defendant GCE has initiated 

telemarketing calls on behalf of GCU. 

34. Consumers have requested that GCU and telemarketers acting on 

its behalf not make telemarketing calls to their numbers. 

35. 

Page 13 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

I 

-

-

36. 

37. GCU and GCE have access to the National Do Not Call Registry 

maintained by the Federal Trade Commission. 

38. 

39. GCE telemarketers have initiated telemarketing calls 

on behalf of GCU to telephone numbers of consumers who had, prior to the 

call, placed their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry even though 

GCU did not have an established business relationship with the person 

receiving the call or the consumer’s express agreement, in writing, to place 

such telemarketing calls to the person’s telephone number. 

40. Defendants also have made telemarketing calls to 

telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry 

many of these telephone numbers were collected 

through online and social media advertisements that do not clearly disclose 

Page 14 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to consumers the language purporting to authorize telemarketing because 

they: 

a. Present the language regarding telephone calls in small type; 

b. Present the language regarding telephone calls in pale print or colors 

that barely contrast with the background (e.g., Paragraph 42); 

c. Surround the language regarding telephone calls with text in more 

prominent, contrasting type, that states that the purpose of the form is 

to confirm entries (e.g., Paragraph 44); 

d. Instruct the consumer to advance to the next screen with terms that do 

not indicate that doing so constitutes an agreement or authorization; 

e. Place the language regarding telephone calls below the graphic the 

consumer engages with to submit the form or advance to the next 

screen (e.g., Paragraphs 41, 43 and 44); 

f. Do not name GCU as the entity that is being authorized to place 

telemarketing calls to the consumer (e.g., Paragraph 43); or 

g. Do not include the telephone number that is the subject of the 

purported authorization (e.g., Paragraphs 41, 42). 

Page 15 of 37 

Public Version
 

-

41. For example, 

Defendants have acquired telephone numbers by presenting the 

following and similar online forms to solicit consumers: 

Page 16 of 37 

Public Version
42. Defendants have acquired telephone numbers by presenting the 

following and similar online forms to solicit consumers 

Page 17 of37 Public Version 
 

 

43. Defendants also purchase information about consumers from lead 

generators. Defendants have purchased telephone numbers and other 

information from lead generators that have used the following and similar 

online forms to solicit the information Defendants purchased: 

44. Defendants have also purchased information from lead generators 

that used the following and similar online forms to solicit the information 

Defendants purchased: 

Page 18 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

45. An individual who has been prompted to press or click “Next”, 

“see results!”, “Submit Info” or similar prompts on 

forms used by Defendants and lead generators 

from which Defendants have purchased leads, has not signed a written 

agreement that clearly evidences the person’s authorization that calls made 

by or on behalf of GCU may be placed to a telephone number included in 

the writing. 

46. In public guidance available throughout the relevant time period, 

the FTC has advised that, to obtain valid express authorization to call a 

consumer, a seller must obtain the consumers’ affirmative assent to a written 

authorization that is not hidden; printed in small, pale, or non-contrasting 

type; or buried in unrelated information where a person would not expect to 

find such a request. GCE and GCU had actual notice of this FTC guidance 

Page 19 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

and were warned by professional telemarketing compliance services that, to 

constitute valid express written agreement authorizing GCU telemarketing 

calls, a purported agreement must clearly and conspicuously disclose that the 

person authorizes the seller to make telemarketing calls; must specifically 

indicate the seller to whom consent is being provided; must include the 

telephone number at which the person consents to receive calls; and must 

require that the consumer take some affirmative action that indicates the 

consumer’s assent. 

47. 

48. 

Page 20 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

Defendants’ Marketing of GCU’s Doctoral Programs 

49. Defendants market educational services for doctoral studies in the 

fields of psychology, education, health and business that promise training in 

independent research and supervised preparation of a doctoral dissertation. 

Defendants represent that GCU’s College of Doctoral Studies will award 

individuals who complete the prescribed courses and produce a dissertation 

of academic quality research in their chosen field a Doctor of Philosophy 

(PhD), Doctor of Education (EdD), Doctor of Health Administration (DHA) 

or Doctor of Business Administration (DBA). 

50. Since at least 2018, in marketing GCU’s doctoral programs, 

Defendants have described these programs as “accelerated” programs that 

enable students to quickly complete their degree, including quickly 

completing a dissertation. Among other statements, Defendants’ marketing 

for these programs has included the following: 

The College of Doctoral Studies at Grand Canyon 

University places doctoral learners on an 

accelerated path from the first day. 

Page 21 of 37 

Public Version
At Grand Canyon University, the doctoral journey is 

truly unique. From day one, you are placed on an 

accelerated path that will prepare you to succeed in 

your academic journey and career. 

51. Defendants have distributed descriptions of the doctoral programs 

to prospective students in online publications, catalogues, and charts. These 

materials describe the GCU programs as twenty course programs that 

require a total of 60 credits. For example, the description of requirements 

for an online Doctor ofEducation (EdD) on GCU's main website 

(https://www.gcu.edu/degree-programs/edd-organizational-leadershipdevelopment-qualitative), includes the following list of courses: 

Page 22 of37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

List 

Major: 

Total Degree Requirements: 

Core Courses I 

RES-815: lnlroducUon to Research fotaJCredits: 3 

RES-820A: The Literature Landscape: Organizational Leadership 

Total Creo';rs· 3 

LOR-800: Eth ical Dilemmas and Stewardship Total Credits: 3 

ORG-807: Stakeholde rs: Ro les in Organizal ions Total Credit:s 3 

RES-831: Foundations of Research Design 1 Total Credits: 3 

R S0 -851: Residency: Dissertation Total Credi!s· 3 

RES-832: Fo undations of Research Design 2 Total Credits: 3 

ORG-812: Organizational Theory. Slru cture, and Process Total Credits: 3 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

ORG-817: Systems Thinking : Building Organizations Th al Last Total Cri:difs: 3 + 

LD R-825: Slrategic Planning and Change Total Credits: 3 + 

RES-841: Designing a Qualitative Study 1 fof3/ Credits: 3 

RES-843: Designing a Qualitative Study 2 Tof=I Credits: 3 

LOR-804: Leading Across Cultures T.c tal Credits: 3 

60 credits 

60 credits 

RSD-883: Residency: The Oualital ive Dissertation Total Credits: 3 

ORG-827: Stralegic Decision Making Total Credirs· 3 

DI S-955: Dissertation I Total Creo'if:s· 3 

RES-873: Qualil alive Da1a Collection and Managemenl Tol=I Credits: 3 

DI S-960: Dissertation II Total Credits. 3 

RES-883: Qualil alive Dal a Analysis, Resulls and Find ings Total Credi!:s 3 

01 S-965: Dissertation Ill Tol=I Credits: 3 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

52. Defendants have distributed enrollment agreements to prospective 

doctoral students for doctoral degrees . 

Many of these enrollment agreements include a 

list of twenty courses, and an itemized list of per credit costs and fees, and 

then state a specific amount as the “Total Program Tuition and Fees,” for the 

doctoral program covered by the agreement. The “Total Program Tuition 

and Fees” listed in such agreements is based on the tuition and fees for 

twenty courses. The specific amounts in these agreements were between 

$40,850 and $50,000, depending on the program and date of the agreement. 

Page 23 of 37 

Public Version
Page 24 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

53. Defendants also distribute estimates of tuition costs for doctoral 

programs to prospective doctoral students that describe the cost of the degree 

based on the cost for 60 credits, representing twenty courses. 

54. Defendants train telemarketers for GCU doctoral degree marketing 

campaigns 

55. Defendants’ telemarketers also direct prospective students to, or 

provide prospective students with, enrollment agreements, catalogues, online 

publications, charts, and other material, as described in Paragraphs 51 

through 53. 

56. In fact, GCU doctoral programs are not limited to the twenty 

courses identified in enrollment agreements, and dissertation courses in 

these programs are not limited to the three dissertation courses listed in these 

agreements (Dissertation I, II, and III). GCU’s requirements for 

dissertations include eight distinct levels of review that students must 

complete from the initial prospectus to final approval. Throughout the 

Page 25 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

multi-level review process, GCU requires students to produce multiple drafts 

with extensive revisions. After a student has completed two years of 

coursework, GCU appoints one or more faculty members to supervise 

satisfaction of the requirements. GCU often imposes these dissertation 

requirements in courses after the three dissertation courses listed in the 

agreements and requires any student satisfying these requirements to enroll 

in, and pay additional tuition for, “continuation courses.” 

57. Continuation courses do not involve traditional instruction but are 

required by GCU while the student is conducting research and making 

revisions to satisfy dissertation requirements. 

58. The number of continuation courses and time required for doctoral 

students to advance through GCU’s doctoral program depends, in substantial 

part, on services provided by GCU. Students’ ability to satisfy GCU’s 

requirements may be, and has been, thwarted and delayed by GCU’s actions 

or inaction, such as reassignment of faculty, inconsistent demands during the 

dissertation review process, and delays caused by the conduct of faculty 

appointed by GCU to various roles in the dissertation review process. 

59. The enrollment agreements Defendants have distributed to 

prospective doctoral students with statements that identify the “Total Degree 

Requirements,” “Total Program Credits,” or “Total Program Tuition and 

Fees” do not list the continuation courses that GCU typically requires of 

doctoral candidates and do not include credits or costs associated with such 

courses. 

Page 26 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

60. GCU very rarely awards doctoral degrees to students upon 

completion of 60 credits, representing twenty courses. For example, 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

61. 

62. Most of the students that enroll in GCU doctoral programs never 

receive the doctoral degree for which they enrolled. Many of these students 

are thwarted because they cannot afford the additional costs and time 

Page 27 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

■ 

necessary to fulfill GCU’s requirements beyond the twenty courses 

identified as required. Many students discover that GCU requires more 

funds or time than Defendants represented only after they have paid 

thousands of dollars in tuition and devoted years to GCU courses. Many of 

these students withdraw or are compelled to leave GCU without a doctoral 

degree. 

63. To the extent that Defendants have communicated to prospective 

students that GCU doctoral programs require more than the twenty courses, 

they have done so in buried disclaimers, misleading statements, or 

presentations that distort the program requirements. For example, in some 

enrollment agreements and other materials, Defendants have included a 

buried disclaimer, stating that “on average, doctoral students who graduated 

required 5.2 continuation courses to complete their doctoral degree.” The 

5.2 average was based on information about students graduating between 

2011 and early 2017, 

Page 28 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

64. After Defendants received notice of the Commission’s 

investigation, Defendants added a section to GCU’s website that 

acknowledged that GCU, on average, required doctoral students to complete 

significantly more than 5.2 continuation courses. Initially, GCU posted a 

statement in this section that the average number of continuation courses for 

doctoral graduates since 2011 was 9.5. GCU later revised this section to 

state that, by the end of 2022, the average for all doctoral graduates since 

2011 was 9.9 continuation courses. These statements acknowledging the 

number of continuation courses GCU has required are buried in the gcu.edu 

website and come too late for students enrolled prior to their release. 

Moreover, this addition to GCU’s website does not acknowledge the cost of 

these continuation courses. Nor does GCU include these statements about 

the average number of continuation courses in the descriptions of the 

requirements for doctoral degrees, like those described in Paragraph 51, that 

appear on GCU’s main website. 

65. Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, 

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

violate laws enforced by the Commission because, among other things: 

a. Defendants continued their unlawful acts or practices despite 

complaints and lawsuits; 

Page 29 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. Defendants acted to mitigate their abusive telemarketing practices 

only after Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC required that 

GCE acknowledge the extent of GCE’s violations; 

c. Defendants continued their deceptive marketing of doctoral practices 

despite investigations by the Department of Education and the FTC; 

d. Defendants have continued to characterize GCU as a nonprofit; and 

e. Defendants GCU and GCE engaged in their unlawful acts and 

practices willfully, and knowing that their representations were 

misleading and their telemarketing practices did not comply with 

restrictions on abusive telemarketing practices. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 

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

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” 

67. Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact are 

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

Count I 

Deceptive Representation of Being a Non-profit Institution 

68. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, 

marketing promotion, offering for sale, or sale of educational services, 

Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that GCU: 

a. is a non-profit institution; and 

Page 30 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

b. transitioned back to its prior manner of operating as a non-profit 

institution. 

69. The representations set forth in Paragraph 68 are false or 

misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were 

made. 

70. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 68 

constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

Count II 

Deceptive Representation of Doctoral Programs 

71. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, 

marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of GCU educational services, 

Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that: 

a. GCU doctoral degrees that include a dissertation are typically 

completed in twenty courses or 60 credits; and 

b. GCU’s total charges for doctoral degrees that include a dissertation 

are the tuition and fees for twenty courses. 

72. The representations set forth in Paragraph 71 are false or 

misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were 

made. 

Page 31 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

73. Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 71 

constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 

74. Congress directed the Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting 

abusive and deceptive telemarketing acts or practices pursuant to the 

Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6108. The Commission adopted the 

original TSR in 1995, extensively amended it in 2003, and amended certain 

provisions thereafter. 16 C.F.R. Part 310. 

75. Among other things, the 2003 amendments to the TSR established 

a do-not-call registry, maintained by the Commission (the “National Do Not 

Call Registry” or “Registry”), of consumers who do not wish to receive 

certain types of telemarketing calls. Consumers can register their telephone 

numbers on the Registry without charge either through a toll-free telephone 

call or over the Internet at donotcall.gov. 

76. Consumers who receive telemarketing calls to their registered 

numbers can complain of Registry violations the same way they registered, 

through a toll-free telephone call or over the Internet at donotcall.gov, or by 

otherwise contacting law enforcement authorities. 

77. The FTC allows sellers, telemarketers, and other permitted 

organizations to access the Registry over the Internet at 

telemarketing.donotcall.gov, to pay the fee(s) if required, and to download 

the numbers not to call. 

Page 32 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

78. Under the TSR, a “telemarketer” means any person who, in 

connection with telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or 

from a customer or donor. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(ff). A “seller” means any 

person who, in connection with a telemarketing transaction, provides, offers 

to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the 

customer in exchange for consideration. Id. § 301.2(dd). 

79. It is a deceptive telemarketing act or practice and a violation of the 

TSR for any seller or telemarketer to misrepresent, directly or by 

implication, in the sale of goods or services, any of the following material 

information: 

a. The total costs to purchase, receive, or use, and the quantity of, any 

goods or services that are the subject of a sales offer; 

b. Any material aspect of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central 

characteristics of goods or services that are the subject of a sales 

offer. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(i), (iii). 

80. Under the TSR, an “outbound telephone call” means a telephone 

call initiated by a telemarketer to induce the purchase of goods or services or 

to solicit a charitable contribution. 16 C.F.R. § 310.2(x). 

81. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating 

outbound telephone calls to any consumer who has previously stated that he 

or she does not wish to receive an outbound telephone call made by or on 

behalf of the seller whose goods or services are being offered, or made by or 

Page 33 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on behalf of the charitable organization for which a charitable contribution is 

being solicited (an “Entity-Specific Do Not Call request”). 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(b)(l)(iii)(A). 

82. The TSR prohibits sellers and telemarketers from initiating an 

outbound telephone call to numbers on the Registry unless the seller (1) has 

obtained the consumer’s express agreement, in writing, to place such calls, 

or (2) has an established business relationship with that consumer, and the 

consumer has not stated that he or she does not wish to receive such calls. 

16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). Valid written agreement to receive a live 

telemarketing call to a number on the Registry requires a writing: (i) signed 

by the consumer, (ii) clearly evidencing authorization to receive calls placed 

on behalf of a specific seller, and (iii) stating the phone number to which 

such calls may be placed. Id. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B)(1). 

83. Pursuant to Section 3(c) of the Telemarketing Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 6102(c), and Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a 

violation of the TSR constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in 

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

84. Defendant GCE is a “telemarketer” engaged in “telemarketing” as 

those terms are defined in the TSR. 

85. Defendant GCU is a “seller” engaged in “telemarketing” as those 

terms are defined in the TSR. 

86. Defendants have engaged in telemarketing by a plan, program, or 

campaign conducted to induce the purchase of educational services by the 

Page 34 of 37 

Public Version
 

use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate 

telephone call. 

87. Defendants initiated outbound telephone calls to consumers in the 

United States to induce the purchase of educational services. 

Count III 

Deceptive Telemarketing Acts or Practices 

88. In numerous instances, in connection with the telemarketing of 

educational services, Defendants have misrepresented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, material information regarding GCU and its 

services, including, but not limited to representations that: 

a. GCU is a non-profit institution; 

b. GCU transitioned back to its prior manner of operation as a nonprofit educational institution; 

c. GCU doctoral degrees that include a dissertation are typically 

completed in twenty courses or 60 credits; and 

d. GCU’s total charges for doctoral degrees that include a dissertation 

are the tuition and fees for twenty courses. 

89. Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth in Paragraph 

88 violate Section 3103(a)(2)(i), (iii) of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(i), 

(iii). 

Page 35 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

Count IV 

Calls to Persons Who Have Requested GCU Not Contact Them

Through Telemarketing 

90. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, 

Defendants have initiated or caused others to initiate an outbound telephone 

call to a person who has previously stated that he or she does not wish to 

receive such a call made by or on behalf of the seller whose goods or 

services are being offered in violation of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. 

§ 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A). 

Count V 

Calls to Persons Registered on the National Do Not Call Registry 

91. In numerous instances, in connection with telemarketing, 

Defendants have initiated or caused others to initiate an outbound telephone 

call to a person’s telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry in 

violation of the TSR. 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). 

CONSUMER INJURY 

92. Consumers are suffering, have suffered and will continue to suffer 

substantial injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and 

the TSR. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to 

continue to injure consumers and harm the public interest. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the FTC requests that the Court: 

Page 36 of 37 

Public Version
 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the TSR 

and the FTC Act by Defendants; 

B. Award monetary and other relief within the Court’s power to grant; 

and 

C. Award any additional relief the Court determines to be just and 

proper. 

Dated this 27th day of December, 2023 

Respectfully submitted, 

/S/ 

Michael E. Tankersley

Naomi Takagi

Brian Berggren 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade

Commission 

Page 37 of 37 

Public Version