Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/16/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  In 2023 I enrolled in **** in reliance on multiple representations including direct communications, and public-facing materials that I would be trained on and have access to download course resources and licensed ************** for Functional Medicine) toolkit materials for three years following graduation. Representations were made including verbal assurances, written communications, and via ***** own public website. On April 11, 2025, (still in the promised 3 year window) I discovered via a WhatsApp thread with cohort members, that alumni access to IFM Toolkit materials was revoked without notice. I initially wrote an email inquiring about the material removal to **** to which they did not respond. Two weeks later, I wrote again. They now responded, initially stating these materials were only for use during the course. However, when I provided screenshots from their website taken on June 4, encouraging alumni to use the materials with clients in private practice (with proper citation) their explanation changed. They then claimed the removal was due to a licensing update from ***. I requested documentation of this licensing change, including communication from *** and confirmation that it applied retroactively. **** refused and ended the conversation. They also removed the web page within hours of contacting them on June 4a page that had been publicly accessible. I have screen shots and time stamps proving this page was still live on June 4 and then subsequently taken down within hours. This page showed as last updated in May 2023. ***** vague enrollment agreement includes an "at our discretion" clause, but that does not excuse contradictory marketing or abrupt policy changes without clear communication. I am concerned about misrepresentation in how the programs benefits and access were publicly described versus what was actually delivered.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/17/2025

  ***** became an FMCA customer in March of 2023 when she enrolled in our Health Coach Certification program.  At the time of her enrollment, she signed the attached enrollment agreement.  Section IV item G (see the top of page 5) states the following:
  
  "Students will maintain access to their course materials in Canvas following graduation, please download all desired materials. Continued access to materials in our learning management system is provided at ***** discretion. Please download all materials to ensure continued access."

  As a byproduct of recent policy changes made in early 2025, a limited subset of course materials was removed from Canvas, our learning management system. These materials represent less than 10% of all materials in the course.  ***** continues to enjoy access to the remaining 90% of course materials. She also had the capability to download all materials at any time to ensure continued access, as instructed in our enrollment agreement.
  
  In addition to our Health Coach Certification program, **** also offers an Alumni Program.  ***** was a member of the Alumni Program, though she withdrew from the program last year and was provided a full refund.  Please note that *****'s withdrawal from the Alumni Program was unrelated to the allegations raised in this complaint (given that the relevant policy changes did not take place until this year).  As it relates to current members of the Alumni Program, **** has and will continue to offer refunds to alumni who are dissatisfied by recent policy changes.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/17/2025

   
  Complaint: 23477945
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 

  The response sidesteps the core issue: clear misrepresentation in marketing and public-facing materials that explicitly trained and encouraged students to use the *** toolkit in private practice which was a major reason I enrolled. This 10 % of resources, is a highly valuable 10 %.  Highlighting that is was only 10 % is an attempt on ***** behalf to minimize the impact of the removal. 
  The timing of the public-facing webpage removal  within hours of my inquiry  is unaddressed and strongly suggests an attempt to hide or rewrite the narrative rather than provide transparency.
  The claim that I had capability to download all materials at any time ignores the fact that the materials were removed prematurely and without notice, cutting off access before the promised three-year window and before I had a chance to download everything. This is not a missed opportunity on my part; its a unilateral removal.
  Regarding my prior refund request for the Alumni Program: This was due to multiple last-minute cancellations of public office hours Zoom meetings by Dr. ************* I paid for and scheduled my time around. When I addressed this with them, the response was that Dr. ***** is very busy which I felt placed more importance on her schedule over the busy schedules of paying customers. I requested a refund, not feeling that the program was not displaying a respect for paying alumni.  This refund was unrelated to the current *** toolkit access concerns and should not be used to diminish the legitimacy of my complaint.
  I am formally requesting documented proof of the alleged *** licensing change you cite as justification, including confirmation that it applies retroactively to alumni.
  A vague at our discretion clause in the enrollment agreement does not supersede consumer protection laws, especially when contradicted by explicit marketing claims and public-facing materials.
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* Ciullo *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/18/2025

  *****, please see our response below:
  
  - In your initial BBB complaint and subsequent response, you reference screenshots and marketing materials.  We encourage you to upload these materials to the BBB portal so that we can properly respond to them.  Absent specifics, we cannot provide additional clarification.
  
  - In your initial complaint, you specifically reference our Alumni Program and associated refund policies ("Honor any request for refund from any alumni who renewed alumni membership without knowing their access to these materials had been restricted prior. Some alumni from my cohort have stated they would not have renewed if they had known IFM toolkit access was revoked.").  As a result, in our previous response, we addressed these specific concerns as well as actions we have already taken in response to Alumni Program member feedback.
  
  - As a reminder, the enrollment agreement you signed clearly states that "Continued access to materials in our learning management system is provided at ***** discretion."  This language is unambiguous.
  
  - ****'s internal business matters, including agreements with third parties, are confidential and proprietary. 
  
  We appreciate your feedback and will take it into consideration as we evaluate future policy changes.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/19/2025

   
  Complaint: 23477945
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Thank you for your follow-up. Please see my responses below:
  Supporting Evidence Upload: I will upload time-stamped screenshots and browser history records showing that ***** web page explicitly encouraging alumni use of IFM toolkit materials in private practice was publicly available until the evening of June 4, 2025, and removed shortly after I contacted **** about this. These materials were clearly accessible to the public during ***** active enrollment marketing campaign. I will also include images showing the message returned when the page was taken down ("Uh-oh, this page does not exist"), with visible time and date metadata. (Note: only 5 files could be uploaded, so the browser history that shows time stamps is available at your request, but in this moment I could only upload screen shots of the public-facing page that was live until the evening of June, 4, 2025 and subsequent blank page, from that same day.)

  Alumni Program Refunds: I appreciate FMCA confirming that alumni dissatisfied with the policy change may request refunds. To clarify, my earlier refund from the Alumni Program occurred prior to these changes and was due to multiple canceled sessions of services I was paying for a separate issue unrelated to this complaint.

  Enrollment Agreement Language: FMCA again cites the at our discretion clause from the enrollment agreement. While I recognize this language, it does not override the issue at the heart of this complaint: that specific, repeated, and public-facing representations were made to prospective and enrolled students that access to IFM toolkit materials would continue for three years post-graduation and could be used in private practice. If these representations were no longer valid due to licensing changes, alumni should have received transparent, advance notice. Abrupt removal without warning, followed by a shift in explanation, raises serious concerns of misrepresentation and unfair practice.

  Third-Party Licensing Confidentiality: **** has declined to provide documentation of the claimed IFM licensing change, citing confidentiality. While I understand business relationships may include private terms, when such changes directly impact consumers especially in contradiction to prior messaging transparency is a reasonable and fair expectation. Consumer protection agencies do sometimes take issue with businesses using vague discretion clauses to justify practices that appear misleading or unfair in context.
  I stand by my original concerns and respectfully request that **** directly address the discrepancy between their long-standing public representations and their sudden policy shift, and provide documentation of any licensing changes they claim required this action.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* Ciullo *****