How misleading coaching ads are eroding trust in India’s education sector

India’s coaching and edtech sector has repeatedly landed in regulatory crosshairs over misleading advertisements, with 2023 marking a turning point.

In 2023, edtech major Byju’s was penalised by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for allegedly publishing misleading advertisements related to its online IAS coaching programme. The regulator imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh, ordered the company to discontinue the advertisements, and directed it to submit a compliance report within 15 days.

According to the CCPA’s order, Byju’s failed to substantiate its claims regarding the number of successful UPSC candidates trained through its programmes. The authority noted that Think & Learn, Byju’s parent company, did not provide evidence to support its assertion that 62 out of 1,228 candidates who appeared for the civil services examination in 2013 were trained by the platform. Consent forms and fee receipts of the selected candidates were also missing. Byju’s had contested the order and said it would appeal.

This episode was not an outlier.

Over the past few years, the CCPA has consistently flagged misleading claims across coaching and edtech players. In 2023 alone, notices were sent to 20 IAS coaching institutes for deceptive advertising. That same year, successful civil services candidates were barred from endorsing coaching institutes after selection, with regulators classifying such promotions as misleading and unfair trade practices.

A pattern, not an exception

The numbers underline the scale of the issue. According to an Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) report, education has consistently been the most violative advertising sector. In 2022, 27 percent of all advertising complaints received by ASCI were related to education, with 22 percent coming from classical education and five percent from edtech.

The trend persisted in 2025, when education once again topped the violation charts. Significantly, 45 percent of violative advertisements were withdrawn voluntarily after ASCI intervention, highlighting both the prevalence of exaggerated claims and the growing scrutiny they now face.

Regulatory action has intensified. In 2024, the CCPA issued comprehensive guidelines to curb misleading coaching advertisements. That year, it issued 45 notices to coaching centres and fined 19 institutes a cumulative Rs 61.6 lakh. Penalties were also imposed on Vajirao & Reddy Institute, StudyIQ IAS and Edge IAS for misrepresenting success rates by highlighting toppers without disclosing that most had only enrolled in interview guidance or short-term programmes.

In December 2025, Vision IAS became the first institute to face a higher penalty—Rs 11 lakh—for a repeat offence. The CCPA found that while Vision IAS’s advertisements claimed dozens of top-ranking UPSC candidates, only three of the 119 showcased had actually enrolled in its foundation courses; the rest had availed limited services such as test series or mock interviews.

src="https://www.linkedin.com/embed/feed/update/urn:li:share:7408458622562754560" height="1345" width="504" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="Embedded post">

Recently, Manisha Kapoor, CEO and Secretary General, ASCI highlighted a case involving an edtech advertisement that promised a “minimum 3x salary hike” after course completion, supported by a handful of success stories. While individual outcomes were genuine, ASCI found no evidence to prove that such results were typical, directly attributable to the course, or achievable for most learners. The claim was upheld as misleading for creating an impression of certainty, despite outcomes being influenced by multiple variables such as prior experience, skills and market conditions.

Why misleading ads persist

According to Prof. Keyoor Purani, Vice Chancellor, Prestige University Indore, misleading advertising survives because economics continues to reward exaggeration more than honesty. “Education suffers from information asymmetry. Parents and students cannot easily verify claims, and grey areas with fine-print disclaimers make it easy to mislead while remaining technically compliant,” he says.

KV Sridhar, Global Chief Creative Officer at Nihilent Limited and Hypercollective, notes that education is among the top three categories for misleading advertising complaints in India. “The core problem is that education advertisers sell results, not learning. No one can guarantee marks, ranks, placements or success, yet these claims function as emotional guarantees for a child’s future,” he explains.

Sridhar argues that this amounts to emotional manipulation. “Parents are locked into years of coaching, driven by fear rather than aptitude or interest. Even universities advertise ‘90 percent placements’ or headline salaries without disclosing medians or full context,” he says.

A systemic distortion

Purani believes recent regulatory action should be seen as a symptom of a deeper distortion. “Education is a purpose-first sector, but its advertising is beginning to resemble hard-sell consumer categories. When rankings and placements become marketing targets, institutions start optimising for numbers rather than learning,” he says, citing Goodhart’s Law.

This distortion has intensified as coaching, edtech and test-prep businesses—operating with low entry barriers and high margins—apply performance-marketing logic to education. “When outcomes are probabilistic but marketing promises certainty, ethical lines blur,” Purani adds.

Investor pressure and credibility loss

ASCI's Kapoor says COVID-19 accelerated the edtech boom and, with it, violations. “Digital platforms and influencer-led campaigns amplified both reach and risk. Many edtech companies are VC-funded, and the pressure to show growth often leads to aggressive, non-compliant marketing,” she says.

Kapoor warns that persistent misleading advertising erodes trust in legitimate offerings. “Education touches every household. When exaggeration becomes the norm, skepticism grows—and that damages the sector’s long-term credibility.”

Vibhor Yadav, Regional Creative Officer and Founding Partner at TGTHR, is blunt: “This isn’t accidental—it’s strategic. When a Rs 4–5 lakh penalty delivers enrolments worth crores, institutions factor penalties into their cost of acquisition.”

According to Yadav, enforcement is reactive, not preventive. “By the time action is taken, the business objective is already achieved. But what’s changing now is scrutiny—ads don’t disappear anymore. They’re archived, shared and challenged in real time.”

The cost of broken trust

The cumulative effect is a credibility deficit across the category. “Parents today aren’t asking which institute is best, but which claim is least exaggerated,” Yadav says. This has driven some students toward self-study and alternative learning models.

Sridhar believes the issue goes beyond advertising. “Education has become over-commercialised. Many institutions are now run like real estate ventures. Making money isn’t wrong—but exploiting fear is,” he says, warning that the sector is increasingly fuelled by “bad money” rather than long-term value creation.

The way forward

Experts agree that reform cannot rely on regulation alone. Ethical advertising must focus on inputs, not guaranteed outcomes—faculty quality, curriculum design, mentoring and learning processes. “If a claim needs a disclaimer to undo its implication, the claim itself needs rethinking,” Purani argues.

As ASCI’s Kapoor notes, advertising can amplify credibility but cannot replace it. “Education marketing must build trust, not trade on vulnerability.”