Judge OKs $25M settlement in Trump University lawsuits

San Diego. A judge said Thursday he will issue a ruling at a later time on whether to accept an agreement for President Trump

Judge OKs $25M settlement in Trump University lawsuits

The Trump University settlement has been approved by a federal judge in San Diego.

Two class-action suits were launched in California in 2010 by former students who claimed they had been deceived by false marketing, and a suit was brought by NY state attorney general Eric Schneiderman in 2013.

Schneiderman accused Trump of running a "bait-and-switch scheme" with the now defunct Trump University, misleading students into believing that Donald Trump himself was designing courses that would help them get rich in the real estate business.

Trump said before winning the Republican nomination that he was unwilling to settle the lawsuits "out of principle", insisting that numerous students were satisfied with the quality of the instruction.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said the agreement represents an "extraordinary amount" of money for customers to recover.

The lawsuits contend that Trump University gave nationwide seminars that were like infomercials, constantly pressuring people to spend more and, in the end, failing to deliver on its promises.

NY prosecutors said the university never had the necessary operating licenses and that students were bilked out of thousands of dollars.

Schneiderman said the victims "waited years for compensation, while President Trump refused to settle and fought us every step of the way - until his stunning reversal last fall". Sherri Simpson, a claimant from Ft.

Under the settlement, Trump will have to pay a total of $25 million in restitution, which means that all of the 6,000 people who sued will get 90% of their money back.

An attorney for that student could not immediately be reached for comment.

Over 3,700 former Trump University students joined in the suit out of the 7,000 eligible to file.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump leveled accusations of bias against Curiel, the US-born son of Mexican immigrants, claiming that the judge was hostile to him because of the mogul's harsh anti-Mexican rhetoric. During the election, she appeared in two anti-Trump campaign ads. Mr. Trump and his lawyers continued to deny those claims, even after the settlement was first announced in November, soon after his election. Another customer, Harold Doe, objected to the settlement because he wants more money, according to court filings by attorneys for Trump and the plaintiffs.

Liverpool face fine and transfer ban for tapping up Stoke schoolboy
April Fools' Day: When pranks are officially allowed!