Paid Grosso University $28,750 for the Jumpstart Program and Sales Academy Subscription under a signed agreement that promised completion in approximately 6–8 weeks, including a sales system buildout, training bootcamp, and consulting deliverables.
More than a year later, the contracted scope was never completed. What was actually delivered was an initial sales presentation and limited early-stage materials — which the company itself describes as "initial delivery components." When I requested a refund, the company's position was that the program was "fulfilled" by that initial presentation, that no refund was available under a "non-refundable" clause, and that the only option was credit toward additional Grosso University programs. I declined the credit offer in writing and requested a full refund. That request remains unresolved.
I have since filed formal complaints with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, the Illinois Attorney General's Consumer Fraud Bureau, and the Better Business Bureau. Those filings are pending.
If you are considering a Grosso University program, my advice based on this experience: get every deliverable, milestone, and completion date in writing before paying anything. Tie payment to milestones rather than to signing. Confirm in writing what "fulfillment" actually means. And do not assume a "non-refundable" clause will be applied only to work that was actually performed.
Reply:
Thank you for responding. A few clarifications for anyone reading: 1. The signed agreement specified an approximately 6–8 week completion window.
That window passed more than a year ago. Whether a project manager was assigned or initial work began does not change the fact that the contracted scope was never completed within — or anywhere near — the agreed timeline. 2.
The position that the project "could not be completed without" further client participation does not match the written record. I have emails, text, and call history and am preserving it in full for the pending regulatory filings. The volume and substance of outreach attempts on both sides is a factual question that will be addressed through those channels, as you noted.
3. A credit toward additional Grosso University programs is not a refund. Declining credit toward more services from the same company, after the original contracted services were not delivered on time, is not unreasonable — it is the entire basis of the dispute.
4. The "non-refundable" language in the agreement applies to services rendered. It does not, as a matter of contract law, shield a provider from refunding payment for a defined scope of work that was not performed within the agreed timeline.
I agree that the remaining details belong in the regulatory channels rather than in a public review thread. The complaints with the Wisconsin DATCP, the Illinois Attorney General's Consumer Fraud Bureau, and the BBB remain pending. A full refund of the $28,750 paid remains the only resolution I am willing to accept.