Tension between two titans of metaphysical education subtly erupted into federal court filings back in 2017. A persistent legal accusation—one institution claiming the other had infringed on its identity, audience, and digital footprint—was at the center of it. Christine Breese founded the University of Metaphysical Sciences, which is well-known for its distance learning spiritual degree programs. The International Metaphysical Ministry, an Arizona-based rival, filed three different lawsuits against the university.
The pattern of each lawsuit was remarkably similar. The accusations included trademark infringement, confusing branding, and deceptive online advertising, especially on Google. IMM, which runs the University of Metaphysics and the University of Sedona, alleged that UMS had improperly used search engine tools to show up next to IMM listings. But as soon as the courts started looking into those claims, they fell apart.
| Detail | Description |
|---|---|
| Defendant | University of Metaphysical Sciences (UMS) |
| Plaintiff | International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM) |
| Number of Lawsuits | Three (2017, 2018, 2021) |
| Legal Allegations | Trademark infringement, false advertising, Google Ads misuse |
| Outcome | All cases dismissed or transferred; no trial, no liability, no settlements |
| Final Resolution Date | May 12, 2025 (dismissed with prejudice) |
| UMS Operational Status | Remained fully operational and financially stable throughout litigation |
| Noteworthy Detail | No lawsuits were ever filed by students, faculty, or regulatory agencies |
In a transparent response, UMS provided digital ad logs that unequivocally demonstrated that the competitor’s branded terms were not used. IMM’s arguments did not convince the courts. In actuality, not a single lawsuit made it to trial. The first was fired and transferred. In the second, there was no admission of wrongdoing and a mutual agreement. The third dragged on for a number of years before being dismissed with prejudice on May 12, 2025, bringing the chapter to an end.
UMS maintained its programs without interruption during this protracted legal dispute. Operating under the nonprofit Wisdom of the Heart Church, the institution continued to offer its core programs, which included doctoral and bachelor’s degrees in metaphysical philosophy, meditation, and spiritual development. Its credentials serve a specialized, frequently personal, rather than professional purpose, despite not being academically accredited in the conventional sense.
UMS showed organizational resilience and legal clarity by continuing to operate throughout the lawsuits. No legal documents ever mentioned students by name. No regulatory agency intervened. Accreditation was not contested. These were disagreements between related organizations that shared a common digital and thematic space, not cases involving educational fraud or harm to students.
The lawsuits themselves sparked more general inquiries about identity protection practices used by organizations in specialized fields. Drawing legal boundaries around language becomes especially difficult in metaphysical education, where terms like “divine consciousness,” “spiritual science,” and “ministerial training” are commonly used. Tensions over who appears first in a Google search are understandable when all schools use the same vocabulary.
That’s precisely what gave these lawsuits a distinct feel. They weren’t brought on by academic setbacks or student grievances. As a result of vying for attention in a search-driven environment, they arose from overlap in digital marketing. Institutions that never intended to directly compete can appear side by side through keyword targeting and algorithmic placements, leading to disputes such as this one.
UMS steered clear of inflammatory counterclaims by offering evidence, documentation, and a composed rebuttal. It was especially noteworthy that they made no emotional appeals. In the end, their decision to let the filings speak for themselves proved to be remarkably successful.
The final dismissal notice was brief, almost clinical in tone, but it carried a great deal of weight, and I found myself pausing as I read it. Nearly ten years of litigation were erased by a single sentence: “Case dismissed with prejudice.” In an instant, the issue was settled legally and irrevocably.
One thing became evident to anyone following the case with interest or skepticism: UMS was never convicted of any wrongdoing. Not once. We looked at their business operations, dissected their terminology, and scrutinized their digital practices. Despite this, no court has ever decided against them.
These lawsuits highlight a larger conflict in online learning, especially in alternative or spiritual fields. Institutions need to strike a balance between openness and identity, transparency and ethics, and tradition and digital innovation. However, it’s crucial that the facts—not accusations—drive the resolution when those tensions turn into legal disputes, as they did in this case.
When the final dismissal came around in May 2025, UMS had not only successfully defended itself but also come out on top. More significantly, it accomplished this without upsetting its academic routine or alienating its pupils.
Schools like UMS provide something purposefully unique in the ever-changing educational landscape of today, where students are pursuing both professional certification and personal transformation. As this legal chapter comes to an end, it also serves as a reminder that openness, clarity, and perseverance can be incredibly dependable allies, even in unusual settings.