Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

The FTC Moves Its Attention to A For-Profit Medical School

By Leonard L. Gordon & William C. Lawrence on April 20, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois against the Saint James School of Medicine (SJSM), an Illinois-based for-profit medical school, claiming its Caribbean medical programs deceived consumers with fake student success rates and offers to finance students’ attendance with illegal lending contracts.

Over the last several years, the FTC has focused on for-profit higher education institutions and allegedly deceptive money-making claims, which the FTC challenges as flawed and costly get-rich-quick schemes. Its move last week suggests that the agency remains highly focused on alleged deception of any type involving paying money to make money, regardless of the format.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that SJSM advertises its Caribbean medical programs as an affordable alternative to American medical schools. However, SJSM also allegedly draws students into the program by advertising that more than 96% of its students pass the USMLE Step 1 exam—a critical standardized medical school test—the first time they take it. In fact, the FTC alleges that the passage rate for SJSM students since 2017 is 35%, and that is only for students who are allowed to take the exam after meeting prerequisites set by the school. The FTC claims that the true passage rates are disclosed to students only in hard-to-find areas of SJSM’s website and are buried in a student handbook that students receive only after SJSM has collected their reservation fees.

According to the FTC’s complaint, SJSM’s malpractice does not stop there. The FTC alleges that SJSM also improperly inflates students’ rates of acceptance into residency programs in the United States. For senior medical students who attend U.S. medical schools, the historic rate for acceptance into a residency program is between 92% and 94%. SJSM advertises that its acceptance rate is between 83% and 90%, but the FTC claims that SJSM actually has an average acceptance rate of 63%.

Finally, the FTC alleges that after students have been lured into attending SJSM, students looking to take out loans for their education costs are then induced to sign lending contracts lacking mandatory disclosures. Federal law requires that borrowers be notified of their right to assert claims against any holder of the borrower’s credit contract. Not only did SJSM allegedly fail to provide the required notice of the student borrower’s rights, but also included provisions in the agreement that attempt to impel student borrowers to waive their legal rights to bring any action against SJSM whatsoever.

To resolve this matter with the FTC, SJSM agreed to enter into a stipulated order for permanent injunction, monetary relief, and other relief. Without admitting to or denying any of the FTC’s allegations, SJSM agreed to pay $1,207,457, which consists of an $850,000 penalty paid to the FTC and $357,457 in forgiven student loan debt. Also, SJSM must stop making any further misrepresentations concerning its students’ potential success on any required exams or potential employment prospects. Furthermore, SJSM is enjoined from participating in any consumer credit contract without the required disclosures of borrower rights to assert claims against any holder of that contract, including SJSM, if necessary.

For-profit higher education institutions should remain vigilant in closely evaluating their advertising for accuracy, particularly as it relates to promises of student success. The attorneys in Venable’s Advertising Group have extensive experience in evaluating the potential risks of advertising campaigns for compliance with advertising and marketing law and representing clients before the FTC.

For more insights into advertising law, bookmark our All About Advertising blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

Photo of Leonard L. Gordon Leonard L. Gordon

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in…

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in investigations and litigation with the FTC, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Len also represents clients in business-to-business and class action litigation involving both consumer protection and antitrust issues. He also counsels clients on antitrust, advertising, and marketing compliance issues.

Read more about Leonard L. GordonEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Other
  • Blog:
    All About Advertising Law
  • Organization:
    Venable LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo