Online Trading Academy Lawsuit: What the FTC Found

Online Trading Academy (OTA) is a California trading-education company, founded and run by Eyal Shachar, that sold stock, options and futures "training" through free local seminars, with packages costing up to $50,000. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued it in February 2020, alleging it used false or unfounded earnings claims, often aimed at people near or in retirement, and that it had collected more than $370 million in six years. A federal court granted a preliminary injunction in April 2020. OTA settled in September 2020: a $362 million judgment, suspended after $5 million to $9.1 million in payments plus surrendered assets, and debt forgiveness for buyers still paying off their courses. It still operates, now branded Trading Academy.

So is Online Trading Academy legit? It is a real company with real classrooms and teachers. What the FTC challenged, and what a judge found the FTC was likely to prove, was the money promise: that buyers would learn a strategy that let them earn a substantial income from trading. OTA did not track whether its customers made money.

Here is how it reached people. On a morning radio show in February 2019, promoting a preview in Fargo, North Dakota, an OTA presenter said "80% of the individuals that come through our doors don't know a stock from a rock." You are 61, your 401(k) feels thin, and the ad invites you to a free three-hour workshop nearby. There you sign up for a three-day class for $299. On stage, the presenter shows a trade he says he made: $15,000 tied up, $1,200 made in half an hour. "Imagine if you could make $1,000 a day consistently," he says. By the end of the class you are being offered a package costing tens of thousands of dollars, with a loan to pay for it.

That presentation, and every line quoted above, is in the FTC's complaint. This page walks through each step of the funnel, what the court and the FTC found at each one, what OTA says in its defence, and what a retiree's $50,000 could do instead.

Key facts about Online Trading Academy

Unless another source is named, the facts below come from the FTC's complaint, filed on 12 February 2020. Those are allegations. The case settled before trial, but a judge did weigh the evidence once, at the preliminary injunction stage, and that finding is quoted below.

Step 1: the free preview

OTA advertised on television, radio, websites, banner ads, search ads, YouTube and direct mail, all pushing people to a free three-hour seminar it called the "Market Timing Preview" or "Power Trading Workshop." The complaint says OTA targeted older consumers "with visibility to retirement age, near retirement or retired."

The earnings talk started at the preview. At OTA's Irvine headquarters on 13 December 2018, a presenter told the room consumers "could potentially make $50,000 of annual income with an account size as low as $5,000," and that OTA "ha[s] a patent on the fact that you can time the markets." At a June 2019 preview in New York, another presenter promised "fire [your] boss level" income and said "you can be wrong 60 percent of the time and still end up on top."

A 2019 national infomercial carried testimonials including "in three hours I made $12,000" and "I made $32,000 in less than seven trading days," and a former dentist saying "I don't have to work for anybody."

Step 2: the $299 workshop

The goal of the preview was to sell a three-day "Market Timing Orientation" for $299, which presenters called a "special discount" off a "retail" price of $600 or more. Some people got in free.

The orientation was where the big sale happened. Presenters showed trades they said they had made, often that same day, and told attendees they could do the same. "In some instances, these claims are not true," the complaint says; "trades shown to consumers are simulated, not real trades." At a March 2019 workshop at OTA's California headquarters, Darren Kimoto walked through one: "$15,000 was tied up," "$1,200, daily income." Then: "Imagine if you could make $1,000 a day consistently."

Kimoto, who the FTC says ran the sales force for these workshops and curated the slides, told the same workshop that all the testimonials "have been audited," because "maybe they had one week where they were successful, but maybe they just got lucky." The complaint's reply is one sentence: "In truth, Defendants do not audit testimonials."

The workshop slides showed hypothetical plans such as "Avg. $300/Day" from "$5,000" of capital in "2 Hours/Day." One presenter asked the room: "[I]f you make 9,000 dollars in a day, you know, or five grand in a day, how many of these do you need to pay off the [OTA] tuition? I'm just saying, you know. Not too many, yes or no?"

Step 3: the package, up to $50,000

At the orientation, OTA sold its courses and coaching, costing "thousands to tens of thousands of dollars." The FTC's headline figure is "as much as $50,000."

The strategy at the centre of it was OTA's "patented" supply and demand method. The orientation course book promised "very low-risk, high-reward, and high-probability trading and investing opportunities" through "a simple step-by-step, rule-based strategy," and said it "has proven to successfully work regardless of the type of investor you are." The company's own CEO wrote to new students that the strategy "allows us to anticipate market moves with a high degree of accuracy."

The FTC says none of this was measured. "Defendants do not track the trading performance of their customers, and Defendants have no data that would allow them to predict the trading performance of their customers." When the FTC announced the settlement, it said OTA's own surveys and third-party trading data showed most purchasers made little or no money.

The people doing the selling were part of the pitch. OTA "instructors" were, in the FTC's words, "salespeople on commission" who presented themselves as wealthy traders. The FTC said in September 2020 that "several high-profile OTA pitchmen admitted they did not make significant money trading." Salespeople were called "education counselors," a title the settlement now bans.

Step 4: the loan

Many buyers could not pay tens of thousands in cash, so OTA lent it to them. OTA "often offers loans with interest rates at or around 18%," with all interest forgiven if the loan is paid off within six months. The complaint says some buyers came away believing they could pay the loan off quickly from trading profits.

The FTC later sued the companies behind those loans. Universal Account Servicing underwrote and serviced the contracts, and Universal Guardian Acceptance funded OTA by agreeing to buy them in advance. In its October 2021 announcement, the FTC said they ignored red flags including complaints, a high cancellation rate, and "the fact that the vast majority of purchasers were not paying off their debt within the six month no-interest grace period." Both companies settled and offered debt forgiveness on the loans they held.

Put plainly: most buyers were still paying 18% interest on a course meant to make them money.

Step 5: the gag on the way out

When unhappy customers asked for refunds and OTA agreed, the complaint says it often made them sign a form contract first. Some versions barred "negative . . . comments" about OTA to "any person or entity," including "any . . . government entity," and on "any blog, internet chat room, website, including all forms of social media." The FTC charged that this broke the Consumer Review Fairness Act. It also meant the people with the most reason to warn others had signed away the right to.

What the court found in April 2020

The FTC asked for, and on 2 April 2020 got, a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is not a final verdict, but the judge has to weigh the evidence first. Judge Selna wrote that, based on evidence including former employees, consumer declarations and "data regarding the trading performance of Defendants' customers," the FTC had "established a likelihood of success" in showing that the defendants:

1. "made false or unsubstantiated claims regarding consumers' ability to earn substantial income, including consumers' ability to do so even if they lacked significant time or investable capital"; and
2. "used standardized contract provisions that unlawfully inhibit" reviews and reports to law enforcement.

The order froze OTA's assets, appointed a monitor over its marketing, and stopped it from charging late fees or extra interest, using debt collectors, selling the loans, or reporting borrowers to credit bureaus on loans made before 2 April 2020.

Who is behind Online Trading Academy?

• Eyal Shachar, founder, CEO and owner, responsible, the FTC says, for "global expansion" and involved in day-to-day "marketing, finance, and sales."
• Samuel R. Seiden, OTA's Chief Trading Strategist and, per the complaint, "the creator and most visible exponent" of its trading strategy.
• Darren Kimoto, one of OTA's chief salespeople and head of the orientation sales force.

OTA runs as a franchise. Local centres pay OTA Franchise Corp an initial fee plus a monthly royalty of 10% of gross revenue, and contribute to a marketing fund OTA controls.

Their side

OTA fought back in court. The defendants sued the FTC in federal court in Chicago (N.D. Ill. 1:20-cv-802), asking the court to declare, in the FTC's description of the suit, "that their activities do not violate the FTC Act or the Consumer Review Fairness Act." The FTC moved to dismiss on 30 March 2020, calling it an attempt to "preempt the FTC's enforcement lawsuit." OTA also took the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit; the FTC's answering brief is on its case page.

Today the company's website, viewed on 29 October 2026, describes Trading Academy as "the leader in financial education," says it has "served more than 85,000 students," and quotes a review it commissioned from a Dr. Harris in 2019 saying its education "provides significant learning value to students."

The settlement order contains no admission. The defendants admitted only "the facts necessary to establish jurisdiction."

How the case ended

The FTC announced the settlement on 15 September 2020; Judge Selna signed the order on 11 September 2020.

• Judgment. $362 million, suspended because of the defendants' inability to pay, and due in full if they lied about their finances.
• Payments. Shachar: $8.3 million, plus a Cessna 400 airplane, a 2006 Bentley Mulsanne, a luxury motor home, a Cadillac Escalade and six minivans. Kimoto: $736,300 and a 2017 Land Rover. Seiden: $158,000.
• Debt forgiveness. OTA had to offer to cancel what customers still owed on their OTA loans, with 45 days to accept. Every dollar of debt customers accepted cut Shachar's payment by 70 cents, up to $4 million. That is why the FTC gave the total as "between $5 and $9.1 million."
• Earnings claims. Banned unless true and backed by written evidence, including claims about how fast people get good at the strategy or how much time and money they need.
• Salespeople. No more "education counselors," and no claims that instructors are active or successful traders unless true.
• Reviews. No gag clauses, and customers must be told they have the right to post honest reviews and file complaints.

Online Trading Academy refunds and debt relief

OTA refunds. On 16 August 2021 the FTC mailed checks totalling more than $5.4 million to 31,144 consumers, averaging $175 each. OTA had also forgiven more than $13.3 million in customer debt under the order. The checks expired after 90 days, and that programme is closed.

Loan holders. Buyers whose OTA loans were held by Universal Guardian Acceptance were not covered by OTA's debt forgiveness. The October 2021 settlement required UGA to offer them forgiveness too, again with 45 days to accept.

The arithmetic is ours: $5.4 million in checks plus $13.3 million in cancelled debt is under $19 million, against more than $370 million collected. If you are still paying a loan for a trading course from any company, check whether it is covered by an FTC order at ftc.gov/refunds before you make another payment.

Red flags in any trading education pitch

1. The free seminar sells the next seminar. If the free event exists to sell a $299 event, and that event exists to sell a $20,000 one, you are in a sales funnel, not a class.
2. "Audited" testimonials. Ask who audited them and for the report. OTA's head of workshop sales said its testimonials were audited; the FTC says they were not.
3. Hypothetical daily income. "Avg. $300/Day from $5,000" is a slide, not a result. Ask what share of last year's students made any money at all.
4. Instructors who are salespeople. Ask whether the instructor is paid commission on what you buy, and ask to see their own trading statements.
5. A loan offered in the room. An 18% loan you are told you can repay from trading profits turns a course into a debt. The FTC says most OTA buyers did not repay within the interest-free period.
6. A contract that limits complaints. Read any refund agreement before signing. Clauses that penalise honest reviews are banned under the Consumer Review Fairness Act, and one that bars you from talking to regulators tells you what the seller fears.
7. "Works in any market." OTA salespeople said its strategy made money whether the market went "up, down, or it just stays sideways." Ask for the customer data that proves it. OTA had none.

How Fake Gurus Fabricate Income Proof (And How to Spot It) covers how winning-trade slides get made. Our Raging Bull case study looks at the same promise sold as a subscription instead of a seminar.

What $50,000 could do instead

The people OTA targeted, according to the FTC, were near retirement and worried their savings were not enough. Paying $50,000 for a course, often on an 18% loan, is a bet that you will become a better trader than most professionals. The FTC's evidence says most buyers lost that bet.

The other path is boring and it works for most people: put the money in a low-cost index fund and leave it. Our index investing guide explains how. Use the FIRE calculator to see how many years a lump sum like that, plus steady monthly saving, takes off your working life. For someone in their sixties, keeping $50,000 invested instead of handing it to a seminar company can be the difference between retiring on schedule and working several more years to rebuild it.

More case studies from this series: Growth Cave and Elias Yoder, the AI influencer behind the Amish channel.