At iCanStudy, we deeply value honest feedback and strive to continuously improve the learning experience for every student. We know that transparency builds trust, so we want to directly address a clause that was previously included in our Terms and Conditions, and explain why it was there.
The clause in question
In the early years of iCanStudy, our Terms and Conditions included the following statement:
"You will not publicly or otherwise criticise our techniques and approaches and/or disparage our reputation and brand name and further agree and acknowledge that your experience will not be an accurate representation or measurement of our techniques and methodologies; and in the event that you publicly or otherwise criticise and/or disparage us, this will be a breach of these Terms which will be dealt with in accordance with these Terms or we may commence legal action as we deem fit."
We understand that this raised concerns for some users, particularly when quoted in isolation. So we want to provide context.
What is often left out
In many forums where this clause has been discussed, what is often excluded are the immediately preceding clauses, which stated:
"by not following any of the guidelines provided by the courses, you will have a poor experience of the course and are less likely to achieve success using the techniques set out in the course or on the Site;
The program structure and restrictions are created based on extensive evaluation of user experience and outcomes and that by deviating from or non-compliant with them, any failure to use the techniques is completely due to your own sole decision which we will not be liable;"
Together, these clauses clarified that the criticism restriction applied specifically to cases where individuals chose to:
Disregard the program’s structure, guidelines, and expectations
And then publicly misrepresented their experience
Why was this clause introduced in the first place?
This clause was not intended to suppress genuine feedback or prevent users from sharing honest experiences.
Instead, these clauses were introduced in response to a series of problematic incidents, including:
Users who ignored core recommendations, skipped steps, rushed through content, and then complained about outcomes we had explicitly cautioned against
Individuals posting fabricated stories that were proven false through internal audits
Fake accounts being created to spread misleading reviews from people who never logged into the platform after signing up
At least two cases where competitors created false reviews and later attempted to copy and resell our material
In some cases, we were able to prove that the reviews were false and have them removed from formal review platforms. However, that didn’t stop the spread of these stories on public forums where no verification was required.
The clause was introduced as a deterrent to bad-faith or deliberately misleading behavior, not as a blanket ban on honest, critical feedback.
Why we removed the clause
Despite its original intent, we recognise that the clause became a source of controversy. Over time, we’ve also learned that it's not realistic to stop someone from lying about their experience or ignoring our recommendations, given the scale of learners on our platform.
So we’ve taken a different approach. We now focus on:
Clearly communicating upfront that this program only works if you’re willing to follow the structure, pace, and recommendations carefully
Preventing people from joining if they don’t have the right mindset or aren’t ready to follow instructions seriously
Doubling down on improving the product, so that the overwhelming majority of successful learners can speak for the program with their results
To see experiences from real learners who followed our advice, you can check out our verified reviews on TrustPilot or view in-depth case studies on our case reports page.