Quick Answer: InventHelp is not facing a single nationwide class action lawsuit, but it has been the subject of consumer complaints, arbitration claims, and state-level legal actions alleging deceptive marketing and business practices.

InventHelp is a private invention submission and product development company that assists individuals who have ideas for new products. InventHelp has been in operation since 1984 and has its headquarters in Pittsburgh, PA. The firm has more than 65 regional offices in different parts of the US and Canada.

The company markets services such as:

• Idea submission and evaluation
• Patent referral assistance
• Prototype development
• Marketing and licensing outreach

InventHelp does not manufacture products or guarantee that an invention will be patented, licensed, or generate profits.

InventHelp touts itself as a “leading inventor service” that helps aspiring inventors turn their dreams into focus by ensuring they get a patent for their product through various avenues. The company helps individuals package their ideas and get a patent through low-cost patent referral services.

It then shares the idea with the 9,000+ firms in its Data Bank that are always on the lookout for bright new ideas and innovations. These companies sign a confidentiality agreement with InventHelp, allowing them to review inventors’ ideas but not steal them.

InventHelp has drawn legal attention primarily due to consumer dissatisfaction, not because of a single coordinated lawsuit.

Complaints and legal actions typically center on allegations that:

• Consumers were led to believe their ideas were more likely to succeed than was realistic
• Fees were paid for services that did not result in commercialization
• Marketing materials overstated the likelihood of financial returns

These disputes often arise after inventors spend thousands of dollars without seeing tangible results.

As of now, there is no active federal class action or mass tort litigation against InventHelp.

However, the company has faced:

• Individual lawsuits brought by dissatisfied customers
• Arbitration claims, which are common due to contractual arbitration clauses
• State-level consumer protection actions, including past settlements

Most disputes are resolved privately through arbitration or settlement rather than public court trials.

InventHelp has previously been involved in actions brought by government agencies.

Notably:

• In the 1990s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and several states pursued claims related to advertising practices
• These actions resulted in settlements, not admissions of wrongdoing
• InventHelp agreed to modify disclosures and marketing language

These cases continue to be cited by critics, even though they are decades old.

One reason InventHelp lawsuits rarely become class actions is contractual structure.

InventHelp agreements typically include:

1. Mandatory arbitration clauses
2. Class action waivers
3. Detailed disclosures about risks and lack of guaranteed success

These provisions significantly limit consumers’ ability to bring large, coordinated lawsuits in court.

While claims vary, recurring themes include:

• High upfront costs with limited return
• Dissatisfaction with marketing outreach efforts
• Misunderstanding of what services InventHelp actually provides
• Belief that an invention was “approved” or “promising” when success was unlikely

Importantly, dissatisfaction alone does not necessarily establish legal liability.

InventHelp is a legitimate, operating company, not an outright scam. However, critics argue that its business model may not be suitable for most inventors, particularly those expecting guaranteed results.

Courts and regulators generally focus on whether:

• Disclosures were clear and accurate
• Marketing statements were misleading
• Consumers understood the risks before paying

Online reviews of InventHelp are mixed. Some customers report satisfaction with the process, while others express frustration over cost versus outcome.

Negative reviews alone do not prove illegality, but they often prompt regulatory interest when patterns emerge.

One frequently cited dispute involving InventHelp centers on Etta Calhoun, a Texas resident who alleged that she was misled about the services InventHelp would provide to help commercialize her invention idea.

According to court filings and public accounts, Calhoun contacted InventHelp in 2012 after seeing advertisements featuring celebrity spokesperson George Foreman. She claimed that the company’s marketing and representatives led her to believe InventHelp would meaningfully assist with developing, patenting, and marketing her idea for scripture-themed bedding products.

Calhoun alleged that after paying several fees—totaling thousands of dollars—InventHelp failed to deliver the promised services or provide meaningful progress toward commercialization. She further claimed that she was directed to third-party financing to fund additional fees and that communication from the company diminished after payment was made.

Calhoun’s allegations were included in proposed class action filings in Pennsylvania and New York, in which plaintiffs accused InventHelp and related entities of deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of consumer protection statutes, including the American Inventors Protection Act.

However, these cases did not proceed as certified class actions, and no court issued a final ruling establishing company-wide liability or fraud. Like many disputes involving invention submission companies, the litigation faced procedural hurdles, including arbitration clauses and class action waivers contained in customer agreements.

InventHelp has previously been subject to regulatory scrutiny and settlements requiring changes to advertising disclosures, though the company has consistently denied wrongdoing. Importantly, settlements and dismissals in these matters do not constitute findings of fraud or admissions of liability.

While some individual consumers have pursued arbitration or civil claims, there is no active nationwide class action or mass tort litigation currently pending against InventHelp based on these allegations.

The Calhoun dispute is frequently referenced in discussions about invention submission companies because it highlights broader concerns raised by consumer advocates, including:

• High upfront fees with uncertain outcomes
• The gap between marketing expectations and delivered services
• The difficulty of pursuing collective legal remedies due to arbitration clauses

These issues have prompted ongoing debate about consumer protections for independent inventors, even in the absence of successful class action litigation.

Consumers who believe they were misled may have options such as:

• Filing an arbitration claim under their contract
• Submitting complaints to state consumer protection agencies
• Consulting an attorney about potential misrepresentation or fraud claims

Because claims are fact-specific, outcomes depend heavily on contract terms and evidence.

The InventHelp lawsuit narrative is often misunderstood. There is no sweeping class action or mass tort against the company, but there have been and continue to be individual legal disputes and regulatory scrutiny.

For inventors, the key legal takeaway is understanding contractual terms, managing expectations, and recognizing that invention services carry significant financial risk.