What Are the Legal Procedures to Claim Refunds from Online Course Platforms (EdTech) for False Placement Promises?
Interpretation of Consumer Rights, Misleading Advertising and Compensation of Refunds under the Consumer Protection Act 2019
Author: Krushna Bawa, Student at DES’s Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune
Abstract:
The digital revolution has brought about changes in the education sector of India. There are many online learning platforms that have come up offering various professional courses including programming, management, and law. The digital platforms have made it a point to advertise high-paying career prospects, placement support, industry connections, and salary growth models to lure students.
Even as digital technology facilitates access to education, serious issues arise in connection with deceptive advertising and unrealistic placement promises. Learners find themselves enrolling in costly courses based on foolproof placement, interviews, or salary packages. But when such expectations do not meet up to reality, then the consumers of learning face serious monetary losses.
Such fact matrices raise some basic issues in jurisprudence. Can there be claims for refund where the assurances for employment turn out to be false? What are the legal remedies that can be taken under Indian legislation? How is the refund to be sought?
The provisions for Consumer Protection Act, 2019 offer an encompassing legal structure for these concerns. The Act protects consumers who are learners from misleading advertisements, unfair trade practices, and poor service quality, authorizing executives to punish deceptive firms.
This article looks at the statutory process for obtaining refunds in cases of EdTech, looking at pertinent laws as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This article will look at enforcement cases that have been handled by the Central Consumer Protection Authority with regard to misleading advertisements.
Legal Framework:
Students as consumer:
The basic requirement in making any claim for refund is to show that the student is a consumer under the law. Consumer is defined in section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 as a person buying goods or using or accepting any service for a proper consideration in terms of money or mode of exchange. Since the students pays fees to avail themselves of educational services and courses, clearly comes under the protection of this statute.
Misleading Advertisements:
Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 states that misleading advertisement refers to any promotions which makes false representations about the nature of services provided, gives false guarantees and even intentionally hides relevant information.
Job-related ads have an impact on the decision-making process of student-consumers. Absolute marketing statements such as:
- 100% Placement Guarantee
- Assured Jobs
- Guaranteed Salary Package
set legal expectations. If an EdTech company uses such marketing claims without concrete empirical data to prove them, then this is an example of illegal and misleading advertising. The main purpose of this legislative provision is consumer protection from misleading marketing.
Unfair Trade Practices:
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 under section 2(47) does not allow any act of unfair trade practice that includes making false representation concerning statutory quality, institutional endorsement or nature of the service offered. An act of unfair practice will be committed in case of the EdTech company uses fraudulent means of getting monetary benefit by overstating its placement rates and hiding less successful alumni.
Deficiency in Service:
Shortage of service is said to happen where the service provider does not offer his services as per the promise made.
This happens where an EdTech Company for instance, clearly promises:
- Placement Assistance
- Interviews
- Career Guidance
- Links with Employers,
But does not offer the above mentioned services sufficiently, the consumer may say that there is shortage of services. It will depend on the facts of the particular case.
Role of Central Consumer Protection Authority:
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 enacted the establishment of Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) in order to protect consumers as a class and to regulate any misleading advertisements.
Some of the powers of the (CCPA) include:
- Investigation of unfair trade practices.
- Penalties.
- Withdrawal of misleading advertisements.
- Modification of advertisements.
- Consumer protection.
Recently, the activities of CCPA have reveled the need for transparency and accountability in education sector.
LEGAL PROCEDURE FOR CLAIMING A REFUND:
Step 1: Preserve Evidence
Preservation of all relevant evidence constitutes the first step.
The list of documents that the students may preserve includes:
- Advertisement material.
- Brochures.
- Screenshots from website.
- Emails.
- WhatsApp messages.
- Webinar recording.
- Admissions form.
- Payment receipt.
- Placement guarantee.
Documentary evidence usually decides the fate of a consumer complaint.
Step 2: Analyze the Enrollment Agreement
Students should study:
- The refund policy.
- Placement clause.
- Services description.
- Terms and conditions.
While the companies make extensive use of contractual provisions, consumer forums may ignore unreasonable contractual provisions that run against the interests of consumers.
Step 3: Issuance of a Legal Notice
Before filing a lawsuit, students must first send out a legal notice.
This notice must:
- State the facts.
- Highlight any misleading statements made.
- Demand a refund.
- Claim compensation where possible.
- Allow adequate time to respond.
Most cases are settled at this point.
Step 4: Filing of Complaint Through Consumer Grievance Channels
This can be attempted by students using consumer grievances channels. The process is much quicker and cost-effective compared to legal action. In case the problem is not solved, then litigation becomes an option.
Step 5: File Consumer Complaint
The consumer complaint can be made to the relevant Consumer Commission.
The consumer complaint will consist of:
- Names of the parties.
- Nature of the controversy.
- Documentary evidence.
- Relief required.
The complaining party could claim:
- Return of charges.
- Compensation for financial damages.
- Compensation for mental suffering.
- Costs of litigation.
- Remedies against deceptive advertisements.
MAIN ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDIES:
Placement Claim Misrepresentations: When Is It the Law?
India’s EdTech sector has flourished based on the guarantee of employability. In contrast to traditional schools, numerous websites promote their courses mainly due to job guarantees and not because of the courses’ curriculum. Many ads contain phrases such as “100% Placement Assistance,” “Assured Job Interviews,” “Average Annual Salary of ₹10 Lakh,” or “Learn Now, Get Recruited Later.” Such statements play an important role for many learners who pay good money for these courses.
However, the key question here is whether EdTech companies’ marketing campaigns represent accurately the services that are delivered to their clients or not. As per Section 3(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, advertising will be considered statutory misrepresentation if it creates an illusion, omits a material fact, or gives unsubstantiated commercial guarantees.
For instance, “100% Placement” advertisement can be deemed legally deceptive when the result depends on conditions such as criteria of academic performance and low employer involvement, which are not revealed. In the same way, displaying only the selected alumni who succeeded without revealing the total percentage of placement is deceptive towards the potential clients. Hence, the legal framework requires educational service providers to make sure all statements made are entirely truthful, legal, and verifiable.
- CCPA v. Vajirao & Reddy Institute, (2024)
The Central Consumer Protection Authority moved statutory action against the Respondent coaching institute on the grounds of disseminating misleading promotional activities. The challenged advertisements contained exaggerated claims of success rate in competitive exams along with unscrupulous use of names and pictures of the students without disclosing the actual number of students enrolled with the institution.
The regulatory body asserted that the misleading campaigns amounted to misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. On the contrary, the institute argued that the advertisements represented the success of the students and came under the category of commercial speech.
It was held by the CCPA that the advertisements were misleading under the statute of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was ordered by the regulator that there should be complete transparency in the marketing of educational institutions.
- CCPA v. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd.
Motion Education highlighted the success of certain students in the JEE and NEET examinations through their massive advertising campaign. They implied that their institute was responsible for the success of all their successful students. However, the investigation discovered that majority of such students had taken limited educational programs including test series, online revision batches, or limited courses only. This fact was not disclosed in any of the advertisements. CCPA found the advertisements to be misleading as they did not provide complete information about the educational service availed by the students. They imposed a fine of ₹10 lakh. Under consumer protection law, there is a requirement on educational institutions to disclose complete and accurate information. The selective disclosure of facts which results in creating an exaggerated picture of success is unfair trade practice. EdTech companies also regularly make use of placement figures and salary packages in a similar fashion. Such a practice can lead to legal consequences unless backed by proper data and disclosures.
- CCPA v. Career Line Coaching (CLC), Sikar
Ads by Career Line Coaching have been released in which successful JEE and NEET aspirants were shown without mentioning the fact that some of the students attended only selective courses and not classroom coaching. According to the CCPA, hiding such information amounted to misleading the aspirant students about the role played by the institution in making them successful. The CCPA fined the institute ₹5 lakh and asked it to withdraw such misleading ads. It is necessary for companies that offer educational services to make sure that all information in their promotions is true and complete rather than making false promises. Likewise, online platforms should not run advertisements like “100% placement” or salary package without disclosing the fact that only very few students found employment.
- Judicial Position on Educational Services
The Indian Supreme Court has always made a clear distinction between statutory educational institutions and private commercial service providers. As per Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009), statutory test proceedings undertaken by the educational boards do not qualify as “services” under consumer law as they are sovereign and non-commercial activities. Also, as per Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, the Supreme Court has stated that statutory academic proceedings are not within the domain of jurisdiction of the consumer forum. However, these decisions have no legal significance in protecting private EdTech companies as statutory universities, these private digital learning platforms are completely commercial services provided against payment and are covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION:
Though the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 strengthened the rights of consumers through the creation of Central Consumer Protection Authority, the phenomenal increase in the number of EdTech companies in India highlights significant legislative gaps. The most glaring loophole in the regulatory system is that there are no legal definitions of common terms used for promotions such as “placement assistance,” “career assistance,” or “job guarantee.” Without any legal framework for definitions, these terms are loosely interpreted by companies and students who are the consumers.
A major system-based problem faced by the market is information asymmetry. The EdTech firms hold absolute monopoly over the placement records of all students, while the consumer students depend entirely on digital marketing campaigns for their information and decision-making process. In addition to this, although the measures taken by the CCPA are very laudable, there always exists an inherent reactiveness associated with regulatory intervention. Intervention usually takes place after students have sustained substantial damage in terms of their finances. Considering the size of the online education sector in India, a move towards preventive regulation is imperative.
Moreover, India does not have any special statutes that govern commercial representations made through EdTech platforms. The existing consumer statutes are general in nature, covering all industries without addressing the specific aspects of digital mechanisms such as algorithms, influencer promotion, and even AI. To address these regulatory deficiencies, specific legislative measures need to be introduced. Firstly, the executive needs to develop rules that will regulate digital employability representations. Secondly, it is necessary for the platforms to disclose independently audited placement statistics, as well as the method of calculation. Lastly, institution-specific refund policies and criteria of placement need to be disclosed.
Moreover, it is imperative that all the promotional material used make it clear the difference between the placement support and guarantee of employment. The students should be provided with standardized statutory disclosures as to the exact terms of career services provided by the institution. Lastly, consumer awareness is imperative. There should be cooperation between educational institutions, regulatory bodies, and consumer bodies to enlighten the students on their rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
CONCLUSION:
The burgeoning of India’s EdTech industry has made it possible to democratize learning of professional skills through the use of technology, creating unique chances for students. However, while this commercial success highlights the necessity for corporations to be highly accountable for their advertisement within the field of education, exaggerated claims about placements do not only defraud consumers, but they also damage public trust in the education industry. Since students rely heavily on advertisements to make crucial financial decisions, the latter should be truthful and grounded in empirical evidence.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in combination with the legislative functions of the CCPA and the specific Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisement in the Coaching Sector, 2024, form a strong statutory basis to curb fraudulent advertising in education. The recent exemplary punishment meted out to the Vajirao & Reddy Institute, Motion Education, and Career Line Coaching amply illustrate that corporate service providers cannot perpetrate any fraud through misleading advertisement without facing serious statutory liabilities. Yet, dynamic changes in business models in the field of EdTech demand ongoing development in jurisprudence. Employs ability promises need to be more transparent with an audit and disclosure regime, simultaneously making the student-consumer legally literate.
Finally, the success of digital education in India in the future is not just dependent upon innovation and development in technology, but also depends on the elements of honesty, customer trust, and proper corporate behavior. This will help in achieving sustainable development while making sure that interests of millions of students who have invested their hopes for a bright future in digital education are safeguarded.
REFERENCES
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Act No. 35 of 2019).
- Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Act No. 35 of 2019).
- Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
- Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483.
- Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159.
- Vajirao & Reddy Institute – Final Order of the Central Consumer Protection Authority dated 20 February 2026, imposing a ₹15 lakh penalty for misleading advertisements relating to UPSC CSE results.
- I Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. – Final Order of the Central Consumer Protection Authority dated 15 May 2026, imposing a ₹10 lakh penalty for misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices.
- Career Line Coaching (CLC), Sikar – Final Order of the Central Consumer Protection Authority dated 15 May 2026, imposing a ₹5 lakh penalty for misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices.
- Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India.
- Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).
- Press Information Bureau (PIB), Government of India.
