The Internet has greatly narrowed the field of the seminar folks, simply because it's made information so much more-available at far lower cost. I'm not even slightly surprised that these seminars are gone, having disappeared following the '08 crash, both due to the changes in the real estate market and the proliferation of information via online means.As for the BBB angle, it's worthless in either direction. As a former CEO my view on the BBB is 180 degrees out-of-phase with that of most consumers. BBB "accreditation" requires membership for a fee. Unfortunately the fact that the BBB is decentralized (the various regional units are more-or-less independent), "pay to play" organization and businesses are the ones paying, while the consumer is the one allegedly protected, along with the fact that their measurement means you can't expect consistency, especially across organizations that are and are not "members" or are and are not "accredited." In other words whether the organization was listed as "A+", "D" or not at all gives you nothing actionable.
In short I don't think there's anything wrong with Trump's organization having a piece of itself that ran seminars that charged an amount of money that was roughly what I'd expect to see charged for this sort of thing. That they ran afoul of a state law on their name doesn't exercise me much either. And finally, given the apparent number of people who took these seminars and that nearly all of them appear to have been happy with what they received I'm trying to figure out exactly what the argument here is. If it's that he made money at it, well, isn't that what capitalists are supposed to be doing?
The bottom line is this: Have you ever seen a business operate with thousands of customers with a 100% satisfaction rate?
Neither have I.