Publishing.com's AI Publishing Academy: The FTC Found Fake Reviews, Hidden Refund Traps, and Income Claims That Were Built on Lies

By Tyler Brennan · Published April 28, 2026 · Scoring explained

April 2026. The FTC drops a $1.5 million settlement against Publishing.com — also known as AI Publishing Academy (AIA).

And I read the complaint and kept stopping to underline things. Because the FTC found THREE separate categories of deception. Not one. Three.

Fake testimonials from employees and family members. A "no questions asked" refund guarantee that required you to jump through so many hoops it was functionally impossible to actually use. And income claims that the FTC says were built on false representations.

If you've been watching a Publishing.com VSL or you're on the fence about spending $2,000 on AI Publishing Academy, this is the post you need to read before you make that call.

Background: Who Is Publishing.com?

Publishing.com is an online education company that teaches self-publishing — specifically, publishing books on Amazon's KDP (Kindle Direct Publishing) platform.

The company was founded by Christian Mikkelsen and Rasmus Mikkelsen — brothers who built their brand around the story of discovering passive income through publishing books on Amazon. They have a large YouTube presence, a substantial email list, and have sold courses to tens of thousands of students.

Their flagship products:

• AI Publishing Academy (AIA): The primary course, teaching students to publish books (and now AI-assisted content) on KDP. Cost: up to $1,995
• Publishing Accelerator: An add-on program launched in 2022

The pitch is compelling: use AI tools to write books faster, publish them on Amazon, earn royalties passively. The KDP model is real — plenty of people do earn money from self-publishing. The question the FTC answered is whether Publishing.com's claims about what students could earn were honest.

The answer, per the FTC: no.

What They Were Selling

The marketing for AIA centered on claims like:

• "Copy the EXACT system hundreds of my students use to make $1k to $3k a month in passive income"
• Testimonials from students supposedly earning these amounts
• Lifestyle imagery consistent with the program generating significant passive income
• A "no questions asked" money-back guarantee

The FTC's complaint identifies all three of these as either false or misleading. Let me break each one down.

Red Flag #1: The FTC Found the Income Claims Were False

The FTC charged Publishing.com with making false earnings claims that misled consumers about the income they were likely to earn.

The specific allegation: Mikkelsen brothers marketed programs with income claims like "$1k to $3k a month in passive income" as if this were the typical outcome for students. The FTC's position is that these claims don't reflect what consumers actually experienced.

This is the core of the case. If a company promotes a program with income claims that most buyers can't replicate, and doesn't disclose that the claims represent exceptional rather than typical outcomes, that's an FTC Act violation.

Did the FTC say exactly what the ACTUAL average student earnings were? Not in the public press release — but the fact that a $1.5 million settlement was reached suggests the disparity between claimed and actual outcomes was significant enough to warrant regulatory action.

Red Flag #2: The Testimonials Were From Employees and Family Members

This one is particularly egregious.

According to the FTC complaint, Publishing.com frequently highlighted positive consumer reviews and testimonials to market its programs — while failing to disclose when those reviews were written by company employees or relatives of the Mikkelsens who "might be biased by their connection to the company."

Let me spell this out: the social proof they were using to sell you on the program included reviews from people who worked for the company or were related to the founders.

The FTC's Endorsement Guides have been clear on this for years: if someone has a material connection to a company — employment, financial relationship, family relationship — that connection must be disclosed when they provide a testimonial or review.

Publishing.com apparently didn't disclose this.

When you watch a Publishing.com testimonial video and someone says "I made $3,000 my first month," you're supposed to be able to assume that person is an independent customer. Not a family member of the CEO. Not an employee.

That assumption, per the FTC, was not always valid.

Red Flag #3: The "No Questions Asked" Guarantee Was a Trap

This is the one that makes me angriest on behalf of consumers.

Publishing.com marketed a "no questions asked" money-back guarantee. That phrase exists specifically to communicate simplicity — you're not happy, you get your money back, no hoops.

What the FTC found: consumers who tried to use the guarantee discovered that Publishing.com had hidden conditions — buried in fine print or lengthy terms of service — that made the guarantee functionally unusable.

And then it gets worse.

The FTC alleges that at times, Publishing.com conditioned refunds on consumers providing positive testimonials.

Read that again.

You want your money back? Leave us a positive review first.

That's not a refund policy. That's manufactured social proof created at the moment consumers are most motivated to never interact with the company again. Every five-star testimonial extracted through this mechanism is fake — not in the sense that the customer didn't say it, but in the sense that they said it under duress, as the price of getting their own money returned.

This practice also violates the FTC's rules on endorsements and testimonials. It's the kind of thing that, once you see it documented, makes you reconsider every testimonial you've ever watched.

Red Flag #4: The BBB Has Complaints on File

Publishing.com's BBB profile in Texas shows complaints filed regarding the company. Without access to the full complaint text at time of writing, the existence of BBB complaints corroborates the pattern the FTC documented: consumers had experiences that didn't match the marketing and sought external resolution when internal channels failed.

Red Flag #5: The Refund-Conditioned-on-Review Pattern Has Broader Implications

Think about what this means for the company's review ecosystem generally.

If consumers seeking refunds were told to leave positive reviews first:

• How many of the positive reviews on YouTube, Trustpilot, and the company's own site were generated through this mechanism?
• How many of those reviews would still exist if the reviewer had been able to get their refund without leaving one?

This isn't speculation — it's the logical implication of what the FTC documented. A company that conditions refunds on positive reviews has systematically corrupted its review profile.

The Settlement Terms

Publishing.com LLC and its two principals — Christian and Rasmus Mikkelsen — agreed to a $1.5 million settlement with the FTC in April 2026.

Key terms:

• $1.5 million payment
• Prohibition on making false earnings claims going forward
• Prohibition on using undisclosed testimonials from employees or connected parties
• Prohibition on conditioning refunds on positive reviews

The settlement does not include an admission of wrongdoing — standard for FTC consent orders. Publishing.com continues to operate.

Brennan Scam Score

Tyler's Bottom Line

Publishing.com / AI Publishing Academy is in a genuinely complicated position post-FTC.

The KDP self-publishing model is real. The AI tools that can help you produce content faster are real. Some people have built real income streams through self-publishing.

But the FTC found three separate categories of deception — income claims, fake testimonials, and a fraudulent refund guarantee. That's not a gray area or a technicality. That's three different ways the company misled the people who paid them.

If you're still interested in self-publishing after reading this:

• The FTC's enforcement action means the current version of the business is operating under compliance requirements it wasn't under before
• Verify that current marketing claims are backed by real outcome data before trusting them
• Read the actual refund policy terms, not the marketing copy, before buying
• Search "Publishing.com Reddit" and "AI Publishing Academy review" for current student experiences

Self-publishing is not a passive income magic trick. It requires real work, real product quality, and real marketing to generate meaningful royalties. Any course that sells it otherwise is setting you up for disappointment at minimum, and a refund fight at worst.

See also: FTC April 2026 action on fake reviews and refund traps — pair with Anik Singal / Lurn and Click Profit LLC.

Based on FTC filings and press releases as of April 28, 2026. Consent orders are not formal admissions of liability. Course value and marketing honesty are separate questions.