University of Metaphysical Sciences Lawsuit DISMISSED, What Really Happened in 2025
The University of Metaphysical Sciences lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on May 12, 2025, ending eight years of litigation. All three lawsuits filed by competitor International Metaphysical Ministry (operating University of Metaphysics and University of Sedona) between 2017-2025 were dismissed without trial, with no settlements, no liability findings, and no damages awarded against UMS. The cases centered on allegations of unauthorized Google Ads use, which UMS disproved with advertising records.
What Was the University of Metaphysical Sciences Lawsuit About?
The litigation involved advertising disputes between competing metaphysical education institutions. International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM), which operates University of Metaphysics and University of Sedona in Arizona, filed three separate federal lawsuits alleging that Wisdom of the Heart Church (operating University of Metaphysical Sciences in Arcata, California) used IMM’s trademarked names in Google advertising campaigns.
Key Allegation: IMM claimed UMS bid on IMM’s trademarked names as keywords in Google Ads, directing traffic to UMS’s website.
UMS Defense: UMS produced Google AdWords account records showing negative keyword settings that specifically blocked IMM’s names from being used in any ads or bids.
Complete Case History: All Three Lawsuits (2017-2025)
Case 1: 2017 Arizona Filing (Case 3:17-cv-08280-JJT)
Filed: December 28, 2017
Court: U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
Plaintiff: International Metaphysical Ministry (University of Metaphysics/University of Sedona)
Defendant: University of Metaphysical Sciences
Claims: IMM sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to shut down UMS’s website (www.metaphysicsuniversity.com). The case also included Google Ads allegations but never reached that phase.
Outcome: IMM withdrew the TRO request. The judge transferred the case to California due to jurisdiction issues. No trial occurred. No liability or damages. Case dismissed.
Case 2: 2018 California Filing (Case 4:18-cv-04524-SBA)
Filed: July 26, 2018
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland Division)
Plaintiff: International Metaphysical Ministry
Defendant: Wisdom of the Heart Church (UMS)
Claims: Repeated allegations about Google Ads use and another request to take down UMS’s website.
Resolution: Both parties agreed to a 2019 mutual trademark respect agreement (Docket 126-1). This agreement involved no money, no admission of liability, and no trial verdict. The case concluded with dismissal with prejudice (Docket 104).
Case 3: 2021 California Filing (Case 4:21-cv-08066-KAW)
Filed: October 14, 2021
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco Division)
Plaintiff: International Metaphysical Ministry
Defendant: Wisdom of the Heart Church
Claims: Third attempt alleging UMS used IMM’s names in Google advertising.
Defense Evidence: UMS produced comprehensive Google Ads reports showing negative keyword settings with IMM’s names explicitly blocked.
Court Findings (Docket 74, filed September 9, 2022):
“The search results and screenshots on which Plaintiff relies do not establish that Defendants bid on Plaintiff’s marks or caused their ads to appear in response to such searches.”
“Plaintiff has not submitted billing records from Google, technical logs, or expert analysis that would support its theory of keyword bidding.”
Outcome: UMS won summary judgments in 2024, eliminating most of IMM’s claims. Final dismissal with prejudice entered May 12, 2025 (Docket 216). No trial. No damages. No settlement payments.
What “Dismissed with Prejudice” Means
A dismissal with prejudice is a final court ruling that:
- Ends the case permanently
- Bars the plaintiff from refiling the same claims
- Indicates the court found insufficient grounds to proceed
- Does not constitute a finding of wrongdoing by either party
The May 12, 2025 dismissal legally closed all litigation between these parties on these issues.
Critical Facts: What Did NOT Happen
No Trial Verdict: None of the three cases proceeded to public trial. All ended before trial through dismissal or transfer.
No Damages: No court ever awarded monetary damages against UMS.
No Settlement Payments: UMS paid no financial settlements, penalties, or damages in any case.
No Liability Finding: No court found UMS liable for the alleged conduct.
Not About Accreditation: The lawsuits never challenged UMS’s accreditation, degree validity, curriculum, or educational practices.
Not From Students: No students, faculty, alumni, or government agencies sued UMS. Only one competitor filed all three lawsuits.
Understanding Negative Keywords in Google Ads
Central to this case is understanding how Google Ads negative keywords work:
Negative Keywords: Settings that advertisers use to prevent their ads from showing when specific terms are searched. If “University of Metaphysics” is on a negative keyword list, ads will not display for searches containing that phrase.
UMS’s Evidence: Google AdWords account records showing IMM’s trademarked names were on UMS’s negative keyword list, proving UMS specifically blocked itself from bidding on or using those terms.
Court Assessment: The court found IMM could not produce billing records, technical logs, or expert analysis proving UMS actually bid on IMM’s keywords.
Timeline of Litigation (2017-2025)
- December 2017: First lawsuit filed in Arizona
- 2018: Case transferred to California; second lawsuit filed
- 2019: Mutual trademark agreement reached (no payment, no liability)
- October 2021: Third lawsuit filed
- September 2022: Summary judgment order issued favoring UMS (Docket 74)
- 2024: UMS won summary judgments eliminating most IMM claims
- May 12, 2025: Final dismissal with prejudice (Docket 216)
Total Duration: 7.37 years of litigation across three separate cases
University of Metaphysical Sciences: Institution Overview
Legal Status: Legally registered religious-exempt educational institution
Registration: California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education
Parent Organization: Wisdom of the Heart 501(c)(3) nonprofit
Founder: Christine Breese (2004)
Location: Arcata, California
Accreditation: American Alternative Medical Association (AAMA) and American Association of Drugless Practitioners (AADP)
Degree Type: Religious degrees in metaphysical studies, valid and legal under First Amendment protections and Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Not equivalent to state-licensed secular degrees and not intended for regulated professions like medicine or law.
International Metaphysical Ministry: The Plaintiff
Organization Type: 501(c)(3) nonprofit religious and educational organization
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Operating Names: University of Metaphysics and University of Sedona
Role in Litigation: Sole plaintiff in all three federal lawsuits against UMS
Impact on University of Metaphysical Sciences Operations
Throughout all litigation (2017-2025), UMS continued normal operations:
- Classes delivered on schedule
- Faculty remained stable
- Student services uninterrupted
- Degree programs operated normally
- Accreditation status unchanged
- No disruption to coursework or degree issuance
What Legal Experts Should Note
Trademark Law: The cases involved trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act related to online advertising.
Burden of Proof: Courts require plaintiffs to produce concrete evidence (billing records, technical logs, expert analysis) to prove keyword bidding in Google Ads cases.
Negative Keywords: Understanding negative keyword functionality is crucial in digital advertising disputes.
Summary Judgment: UMS successfully obtained summary judgments by demonstrating lack of evidence supporting IMM’s claims.
Dismissal with Prejudice: The strongest form of dismissal, permanently barring refiling of the same claims.
Online Misinformation Campaign
UMS reports facing significant online misinformation following the lawsuit dismissal:
Alleged Tactics:
- 600+ fake articles containing false information about the lawsuit
- Thousands of negative search terms spammed into Google (September 14-15, 2025)
- AI manipulation affecting search results and summaries
- Automated content systems and AI scrapers repeating incorrect claims
UMS Response: Planning a John Doe petition to obtain court orders for:
- Removal of defamatory articles
- Elimination of spammed negative search terms
- Correction of AI-generated misinformation
- Discovery to identify parties responsible for the campaign
How to Verify Information About This Lawsuit
Use This Checklist:
- Identify the case number: Look for official case numbers (3:17-cv-08280-JJT, 4:18-cv-04524-SBA, or 4:21-cv-08066-KAW)
- Check court dockets: Verify information through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) system
- Confirm procedural status: Note that all cases were dismissed; none are pending as of May 12, 2025
- Define claim scope: The cases were about Google Ads, not accreditation, degrees, or student complaints
- Watch for coordinated posting: Near-identical headlines with keyword repetition may signal search manipulation
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the University of Metaphysical Sciences lawsuit still ongoing?
No. The final case was dismissed with prejudice on May 12, 2025. No lawsuits are currently pending.
Did UMS lose any of the three lawsuits?
No. All three cases were either transferred or dismissed. No trial verdicts were entered against UMS.
Were there settlements or payments?
No. UMS paid no settlements, damages, or penalties in any case. The 2019 mutual agreement involved no financial exchange.
Was UMS found liable for any wrongdoing?
No. No court ever found UMS liable or entered judgment against it.
What were the lawsuits actually about?
Allegations that UMS used competitor’s trademarked names in Google Ads campaigns. UMS disproved this with negative keyword evidence.
Were UMS degrees or accreditation challenged?
No. The litigation never addressed degree validity, accreditation status, curriculum quality, or educational practices.
Are UMS degrees valid?
Yes. UMS offers legal, valid religious degrees recognized under First Amendment protections. They are accredited by AAMA and AADP and intended for spiritual/metaphysical fields, not regulated secular professions.
Did students or government agencies sue UMS?
No. Only one competitor (International Metaphysical Ministry) filed all three lawsuits. No students, faculty, or government entities were involved.
Can IMM file another lawsuit about the same issues?
No. “Dismissed with prejudice” legally bars refiling the same claims.
Is UMS still operating?
Yes. UMS continues full operations with courses, degree programs, and student services unchanged.
Key Takeaways for Prospective Students
- No findings against UMS: Courts made no negative rulings about UMS’s operations, degrees, or practices
- Competitor dispute: The lawsuit was a business dispute between competing institutions, not a student complaint or regulatory action
- Normal operations: UMS maintained full operations throughout eight years of litigation
- Legal standing: UMS remains registered with California authorities and accredited by recognized metaphysical education bodies
- Degree validity: Religious degrees from UMS are legal and valid for spiritual/metaphysical professional purposes
Comparison to Other Educational Institution Lawsuits
Unlike consumer fraud or accreditation cases against for-profit colleges:
- No student plaintiffs
- No allegations of misleading marketing to students
- No claims about degree mill operations
- No government enforcement action
- No challenges to educational quality
The UMS litigation resembled trademark/unfair competition disputes between commercial competitors rather than educational institution accountability cases.
What This Means Moving Forward
For UMS:
- All litigation resolved favorably
- Operational freedom to continue educational mission
- Legal precedent supporting its advertising practices
- Ongoing challenge addressing online misinformation
For IMM:
- Claims legally barred from refiling due to prejudice dismissal
- Eight years of litigation concluded without prevailing on claims
For Metaphysical Education:
- Clarifies legal boundaries for advertising between competing institutions
- Demonstrates importance of concrete evidence in trademark disputes
- Highlights vulnerabilities of online reputation to misinformation campaigns
Legal Precedents Established
Evidence Requirements: Courts require substantial evidence (billing records, technical logs, expert testimony) to prove Google Ads keyword bidding claims.
Negative Keywords: Presence of competitor names on negative keyword lists serves as strong defense against unauthorized use allegations.
Summary Judgment: Lack of technical evidence can result in summary judgment before trial in digital advertising disputes.
Conclusion
The University of Metaphysical Sciences lawsuit concluded on May 12, 2025, with dismissal with prejudice after eight years of litigation. No trial occurred. No damages were awarded. No settlements were paid. No liability was found. The cases centered on Google Ads allegations that UMS successfully defended against using advertising account records.
The litigation involved a business dispute between competing metaphysical education providers, not challenges to educational quality, degree validity, or institutional legitimacy. UMS continues operating as a legally registered religious educational institution with unchanged accreditation status.
For individuals researching UMS, the verified facts are clear: the lawsuit is over, UMS prevailed through dismissal, and the institution’s educational operations were never at issue in the litigation.
Note: This article provides factual information for educational purposes and is not legal advice. All case information is drawn from public federal court records accessible through PACER and official court dockets.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah