Tech bootcamp students are suing over income-share agreements

Their lawsuits allege they were tricked into repayment agreements for a program they say didn’t teach them anything substantial.

 A diploma illustrating criticisms of income share agreements

Two former students allege they were misled on the terms of the ISAs in order to join a 10-week online tech sales bootcamp.

Image: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Two former students filed separate lawsuits Thursday against tech sales bootcamp Top Applicant, which also does business as Elevate, as well as income share agreement provider Leif Technologies, alleging the school tricked students into joining and left them with large debts to pay to the ISA provider.

One lawsuit was filed by Fanxin (Amy) Zeng in King County Superior Court in Washington state and another was filed by Justin Chi in the Central District of California.

With income share agreements growing in use by students, state and federal regulators have been scrutinizing these contracts and examining whether they should be classified as loans, with the same protections as other forms of consumer debt.

The former students allege they were misled to think they were applying for jobs and misled on the terms of the ISAs in order to join a 10-week online tech sales bootcamp for “sales development representatives.” But the lawsuits allege that the students did not learn much while being tracked into entry-level jobs that didn't need training — and then faced harassment to pay back high debts.

Elevate students can pay cash up front or enter into income share agreements, but the plaintiffs said they were tricked into signing up for ISAs, which require payment based on a percentage of the borrowers’ salaries rather than set principal and interest payments.

Top Applicant and Leif could not be reached for comment.

In a striking look at how ISAs work, Zeng’s lawsuit also alleges deceptive and threatening collection practices involving Top Applicant’s CEO and COO. According to the lawsuit, one collection email from Top Applicant CEO Norman Rodriguez starts off:

I understand that you would prefer to simply disappear on us now that you're comfortable in a role. Sadly, you really can't ghost your way out of a financial contract, this isn’t a tinder date you are one and done with.
There are two ways this can go from here.
1) You man up, swallow your pride and embarrassment and contact us to ensure you are in compliance with your Leif contract and make clear you intend to pay the ISA as agreed upon.
2) You don’t step up to the plate and hope this inconvenience just disappears. In that case, we will sell the right to your ISA to a hedge fund that specializes in distressed assets. They will sit on it and do nothing for a while because they know that you probably haven’t read it and don’t realize that if you remain maliciously out of compliance for a period of time, you then simply owe 100% upfront instead of 10% of your income for X months. Then they will come after you and your employer, as well as wreck your credit score for at least a decade and a half…”

Zeng had originally responded to a job post by Elevate on LinkedIn, thinking she was applying for a job, her lawsuit alleges. Zeng then received an email saying she had earned a seat as one of the “top 10% of applicants,” and was given a link to apply for an ISA through Leif, making the ISA seem like a part of applying for a position before enrolling in Elevate, according to the complaint.

Ten days after receiving the Elevate email, she received another job offer without Elevate’s help, the complaint states. The next day, she accepted it. Zeng told Elevate she didn’t want to enroll, but an Elevate representative convinced her not to withdraw, the lawsuit says. When she started the program, she realized it was not helpful, so she withdrew, she said in her complaint.

But Elevate still tried to collect 10% of her income for three years, the lawsuit states.

Zeng’s lawsuit alleges that Elevate’s agreements contain terms that violate Washington laws, such as not having a “uniform statewide cancellation and refund policy,” the lawsuit states.

Chi’s federal lawsuit alleges that Elevate and Leif violated the Truth in Lending Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, among other allegations. Melody Sequoia, an attorney representing Chi, said the companies’ practices were “fundamentally unfair and illegal.”

Elevate promises students will earn $60,000 on its website: "We’re so confident in our program that we guarantee you land a $60k+ job within the first year of completing Tier 1."

Elevate also says on its LinkedIn profile that Elevate doesn't get paid unless students land a role "making over $60,000" a year. However, Elevate contracts obtained by the Student Borrower Protection Center and reviewed by Protocol show payments due if students make $40,000 a year.

Chi’s lawsuit says Elevate’s LinkedIn job listing offered “a base salary of $60,000-$82,000, with dental, vision and medical insurance.”

Chi was still required to pay back the ISA provider Leif even though he found a job that he applied for before attending the bootcamp, his lawsuit alleged.

“The program curriculum was non-existent or underdeveloped and was essentially a guided job hunt. Indeed, because a SDR position is entry level, no training was actually needed to find a job in the industry,” the lawsuit states.

Elevate is not licensed to operate by the state of Washington’s private vocational school regulator, so the ISAs that Top Applicant issued are “unenforceable by law,” the lawsuit alleges. Critics of ISAs have raised questions in other cases about whether the agreements are valid loans and argued that if they aren’t, then ISA issuers shouldn’t be able to collect on them.

Chi’s lawsuit also alleges that Top Applicant’s ISAs are not enforceable because the company is not authorized to operate in California; it seeks to stop Top Applicant from collecting on its ISAs with California borrowers.

Top Applicant Inc. is a Delaware corporation; Elevate does not appear to be a registered business name. Elevate says in its LinkedIn profile it is a San Francisco company, but Top Applicant’s headquarters is in Arizona, according to the Arizona Secretary of State website. A filing with the state of California also shows an Arizona mailing address for Top Applicant, and Top Applicant CEO Norman Rodriguez lists his location as Arizona on LinkedIn.

The Student Borrower Protection Center, which provided documents to Protocol and supported the lawsuits, said it has sent information about the cases to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has shown intense interest in how a variety of new consumer-lending practices affect consumers.

Can crypto regulate itself? The Lummis-Gillibrand bill hopes so.

Creating the equivalent of the stock markets’ FINRA for crypto is the ideal, but experts doubt that it will be easy.

The idea of creating a government-sanctioned private regulatory association has been drawing more attention in the debate over how to rein in a fast-growing industry whose technological quirks have baffled policymakers.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Regulating crypto is complicated. That’s why Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Kirsten Gillibrand want to explore the creation of a private sector group to help federal regulators do their job.

The bipartisan bill introduced by Lummis and Gillibrand would require the CFTC and the SEC to work with the crypto industry to look into setting up a self-regulatory organization to “facilitate innovative, efficient and orderly markets for digital assets.”

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Every day, millions of us press the “order” button on our favorite coffee store's mobile application: Our chosen brew will be on the counter when we arrive. It’s a personalized, seamless experience that we have all come to expect. What we don’t know is what’s happening behind the scenes. The mobile application is sourcing data from a database that stores information about each customer and what their favorite coffee drinks are. It is also leveraging event-streaming data in real time to ensure the ingredients for your personal coffee are in supply at your local store.

Applications like this power our daily lives, and if they can’t access massive amounts of data stored in a database as well as stream data “in motion” instantaneously, you — and millions of customers — won’t have these in-the-moment experiences.

Keep Reading Show less
Jennifer Goforth Gregory
Jennifer Goforth Gregory has worked in the B2B technology industry for over 20 years. As a freelance writer she writes for top technology brands, including IBM, HPE, Adobe, AT&T, Verizon, Epson, Oracle, Intel and Square. She specializes in a wide range of technology, such as AI, IoT, cloud, cybersecurity, and CX. Jennifer also wrote a bestselling book The Freelance Content Marketing Writer to help other writers launch a high earning freelance business.

Alperovitch: Cybersecurity defenders can’t be on high alert every day

With the continued threat of Russian cyber escalation, cybersecurity and geopolitics expert Dmitri Alperovitch says it’s not ideal for the U.S. to oscillate between moments of high alert and lesser states of cyber readiness.

Dmitri Alperovitch (the co-founder and former CTO of CrowdStrike) speaks at RSA Conference 2022.

Photo: RSA Conference

When it comes to cybersecurity vigilance, Dmitri Alperovitch wants to see more focus on resiliency of IT systems — and less on doing "surges" around particular dates or events.

For instance, whatever Russia is doing at the moment.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at


How the internet got privatized and how the government could fix it

Author Ben Tarnoff discusses municipal broadband, Web3 and why closing the “digital divide” isn’t enough.

The Biden administration’s Internet for All initiative, which kicked off in May, will roll out grant programs to expand and improve broadband infrastructure, teach digital skills and improve internet access for “everyone in America by the end of the decade.”

Decisions about who is eligible for these grants will be made based on the Federal Communications Commission’s broken, outdated and incorrect broadband maps — maps the FCC plans to update only after funding has been allocated. Inaccurate broadband maps are just one of many barriers to getting everyone in the country successfully online. Internet service providers that use government funds to connect rural and low-income areas have historically provided those regions with slow speeds and poor service, forcing community residents to find reliable internet outside of their homes.

Keep Reading Show less
Aditi Mukund
Aditi Mukund is Protocol’s Data Analyst. Prior to joining Protocol, she was an analyst at The Daily Beast and NPR where she wrangled data into actionable insights for editorial, audience, commerce, subscription, and product teams. She holds a B.S in Cognitive Science, Human Computer Interaction from The University of California, San Diego.

How I decided to exit my startup’s original business

Bluevine got its start in factoring invoices for small businesses. CEO Eyal Lifshitz explains why it dropped that business in favor of “end-to-end banking.”

"[I]t was a realization that we can't be successful at both at the same time: You've got to choose."

Photo: Bluevine

Click banner image for more How I decided series

Bluevine got its start in fintech by offering a modern version of invoice factoring, the centuries-old practice where businesses sell off their accounts receivable for up-front cash. It’s raised $240 million in venture capital and about $700 million in total financing since its founding in 2013 by serving small businesses. But along the way, it realized it was better to focus on the checking accounts and lines of credit it provided customers than its original product. It now manages some $500 million in checking-account deposits.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at
Latest Stories