InventHelp: Navigating the Invention Process

InventHelp has long positioned itself as the go-to guide for anyone with a spark of an idea, promising a clear path from concept to cash flow. Founded decades ago, the Pittsburgh-based company markets itself aggressively through television ads, online promotions, and direct outreach, featuring everything from cartoon cavemen inventing wheels to testimonials from supposed success stories. Their pitch is simple: submit your invention, and they’ll handle the heavy lifting—research, patents, marketing, and even manufacturing connections—all for a fee that seems like a small price for potential riches. But beneath this appealing surface lies a pattern of experiences that leave many inventors questioning not just their ideas, but the very process they trusted.

As more stories emerge from those who engaged with InventHelp, a troubling picture forms. Inventors, often first-timers excited about their creations, sign on expecting real support only to find themselves deeper in the hole, with little to show for their investments. Legal actions have spotlighted these issues, with class-action suits detailing how the company’s operations consistently fail to match the expectations set by their promotions. This isn’t about isolated mishaps; it’s a recurring theme that raises serious questions about the value provided to vulnerable individuals chasing their inventive passions. In the pages that follow, we’ll explore the key aspects of these experiences, breaking down the promises, the costs, the personal toll, and the broader implications, all in plain terms to help anyone considering this route see the full landscape.

Bold Claims That Don’t Hold Up

InventHelp’s advertising often paints a vivid picture of transformation, where everyday ideas blossom into marketable products with their expert guidance. They highlight services like preliminary research to check novelty, patent assistance to protect concepts, and promotional packages that supposedly connect inventors with manufacturers and retailers. These offerings are bundled into comprehensive plans costing anywhere from a few thousand to over ten thousand dollars, presented as essential steps toward commercialization. The company’s website and infomercials emphasize their track record, subtly implying that with their involvement, success is within reach for those willing to invest.

Yet, when inventors dive in, the reality unfolds differently. Many report receiving basic reports or generic materials that feel superficial, far from the in-depth analysis promised. For instance, feasibility studies that score ideas highly during sales calls often lead to dead ends once payments are made, with follow-up communications dwindling. This mismatch leaves people feeling as though they’ve bought into a system designed more for collection than creation, where the initial enthusiasm from representatives gives way to silence or excuses. Over time, these patterns erode trust, turning what should be an empowering journey into one marked by doubt and regret.

The Power and Pitfalls of Celebrity Endorsement

A key driver behind InventHelp’s broad appeal has been its use of recognizable faces to bolster credibility, most notably boxer-turned-entrepreneur George Foreman. On TV screens and across marketing materials, Foreman’s reassuring presence and legendary entrepreneurial story offer instant trust—especially to those who see shades of their own dreams in his journey from humble beginnings to business icon.

This trust is amplified by layered connections: Foreman isn’t just a champion athlete; he’s a respected Christian minister, which strikes a chord in religious communities.

For many first-time inventors, especially in Black or faith-based circles, seeing someone of Foreman’s stature lend his image makes InventHelp’s promises feel personal and reliable. In fact, legal filings and interviews reveal that a significant number of dissatisfied clients cited Foreman’s endorsement as a deciding factor in their willingness to sign on the dotted line.

Marketing isn’t accidental here—the company specifically targets channels and publications with large minority and older audiences, using Foreman’s background to create a familiar and welcoming face. Sales scripts frequently reference his faith and business success, aiming to turn skepticism into optimism. For many, these appeals blur the line between savvy branding and emotional manipulation, as the authority and relatability Foreman brings can tip otherwise cautious inventors toward decisions they might not otherwise make.

This is further complicated by aggressive financing offers, some carrying steep rates that are glossed over or described in more favorable terms. Combined with the star power at the helm of the pitch, it creates a potent blend: hope fueled by celebrity, locked in by social proof and promises of easy access to opportunity.

Investigative Reports Reveal Deception and Phantom Partnerships

Digging deeper than the standard complaints, several major investigative reporters have exposed a network of troubling strategies behind invention promotion outfits like InventHelp. News outlets ranging from CBS Pittsburgh to the Houston Press have documented stories that go far beyond dissatisfied inventors—they reveal tactics designed to separate hopeful creators from their money, often leaving wreckage in their wake.

What did these investigations find? For starters, the supposed support system—promised databases of manufacturers and prospective partners—often turned out to be smoke and mirrors. Reporters found listings for companies that were long out of business, never existed, or had no clue who InventHelp was. Inventors, lured by promises of eager buyers or licensees, sometimes discovered that the contacts or “deals” they were shown were entirely fabricated, leading nowhere but back to more fees.

Several case studies shared by these journalists pull back the curtain on the real impact. One man, carrying out a heartfelt wish for his mother, took out a hefty loan only to be met with silence and vanished support post-payment. Another inventor, excited to market her Bible-themed bedding idea, was drawn in by extensive courting and friendly sales reps, only to be handed laughable marketing materials and saddled with high-interest loans facilitated by closely entwined lending entities. When payments became burdensome, the tone shifted—from promises of help to threats against her credit, even as company contacts disappeared or were quietly replaced by new faces.

Perhaps most damning, the investigations revealed a tangled web of interconnected businesses. These entities painted the picture of an expansive, professional operation, but in reality were often shells controlled from the same offices, run under different names. Licensing agents, financing providers, even so-called competitors—many shared addresses and ownership, making it virtually impossible for inventors to know who was actually behind the curtain.

The net result? Investigative journalists painted a picture of an integrated system designed not for accountability or genuine invention support, but for extracting as much money as possible through confusion, empty promises, and outright invention of business partnerships.

The Ethics of Celebrity Endorsements and Religious Appeals

Prominent endorsements can carry enormous weight—sometimes, more than most people realize. Take George Foreman, for example. His recognizable face and reputation as a successful entrepreneur and minister serve as beacons of trust for would-be inventors, especially those who already feel outside the mainstream of business circles. When someone with Foreman’s background assures viewers that a company is above board and ready to help, the message sticks—often to the detriment of careful skepticism.

The ethical issues here run deep. First, there’s the problem of implied authenticity. Many inventors, seeing Foreman’s ads, believe that his own household-name grilling product found success through the very services being endorsed—which isn’t the case. That unspoken implication blurs the line between paid endorsement and genuine testimonial, drawing in hopeful individuals who may not pause to question the distinction.

This dynamic is amplified in communities where Foreman’s story resonates—particularly among Black inventors and those in faith-based circles. The combination of commercial celebrity and ministerial leadership creates a powerful and multifaceted trust. When advertising targets these populations, emphasizing religious language or community values, it crosses from simple marketing into something much more deeply persuasive. Plaintiffs in recent lawsuits have described feeling specifically chosen and reassured because of these factors, only to later discover the risks masked behind friendly faces and shared stories.

There’s also the question of accessibility and vulnerability. Many of the targeted audiences are first-time inventors, older adults, or people who may not have the resources to seek a second opinion. By layering celebrity status and religious appeals onto offers of “help,” companies end up leveraging community trust not just for influence, but as a calculated part of their sales process.

In short, the use of beloved figures and faith-driven messaging in this context isn’t just slick advertising—it raises critical questions about fairness and informed consent. When marketing strategies lean heavily on personal reverence rather than product merit, would-be inventors aren’t just buying into a service; they’re investing trust in a promise that’s seldom delivered.

What People Really Encounter: Common Complaints

Digging into the complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau about invention promotion companies reveals a set of recurring frustrations that seem to echo across the industry. A frequent gripe is the lack of transparency when it comes to the partners and clients companies claim to work with—databases provided are often riddled with outdated or defunct contacts, making genuine opportunities feel more like a mirage than a marketplace.

Another sore spot is the pattern of promises around industry trade shows and promotional events. Inventors are told their ideas will be showcased to a network of eager potential buyers, only to later discover they receive no proof of participation or access to event details. Login credentials meant to verify these presentations routinely go “missing,” leaving inventors in the dark about whether their work was ever truly displayed.

High-pressure sales tactics come up time and again, sometimes peppered with appeals to personal values in a way that feels manipulative rather than supportive. Once contracts are signed, the pace slows to a crawl—deliverables arrive late or in forms that fall far short of what was agreed upon, ranging from generic reports to poorly assembled materials that do little to advance an idea.

Perhaps most frustrating for many is the uphill battle inventors face when trying to exit the process. Attempting to secure a refund or terminate an agreement, even when promised services haven’t materialized, is often met with bureaucratic hurdles and long stretches of radio silence. All told, these experiences add up to a cautionary tale that urges would-be innovators to look past the sales pitch and scrutinize what’s really being delivered.

The Hidden Financial Burdens

The fees charged by InventHelp can add up quickly, starting with initial submission costs and escalating through add-ons for each stage of the “process.” Inventors are often encouraged to take loans through affiliated entities, described as low-barrier financing but carrying steep interest rates that compound over time. These financial commitments are framed as partnerships, where the company’s stake in your success aligns your interests, but the lack of tangible progress means payments continue without corresponding advancements.

Beyond the direct costs, there’s the ripple effect on personal finances. Many who engage are not wealthy; they’re teachers, retirees, or side-hustlers dipping into savings or retirement funds for a shot at something bigger. When services stall, these individuals face not just the loss of upfront money but also ongoing debt from those loans, sometimes with interest rates as high as 18 percent annually. This setup can strain budgets for months or years, diverting resources from other needs and creating a cycle of financial pressure that overshadows the original dream.

Personal Stories of Broken Dreams

Consider the experience of Julie Zanotti, a Putnam Valley resident who in 2014 shared her “Liqui Comb” idea—a comb with a built-in chamber for styling solutions—with InventHelp. She was told it had strong potential for profit, leading her to a $7,950 agreement for promotion services. Referred to affiliated companies for funding and manufacturing, she ended up paying thousands more, including a $2,000 down payment to what turned out to be ineffective partnerships. Despite these outlays, her idea never advanced, leaving her with unrecoverable costs and a patent application that revealed prior art, rendering it unprotectable.

Similarly, Ronese Brooks from Yonkers approached InventHelp in 2016 with an innovative eyeglasses design featuring adjustable arms. A representative raved about its billion-dollar potential, assigning it a 93 percent feasibility score—the highest they’d seen in years. She invested over $12,000 across patent searches, promotion packages, and consultations, only to discover similar products already existed and receive no further support. These accounts, echoed in court filings, illustrate how individual enthusiasm is met with high-pressure sales tactics that prioritize quick commitments over thorough evaluation, resulting in emotional letdowns as much as monetary ones.

Legal Scrutiny and Courtroom Revelations

Class-action lawsuits have brought InventHelp’s operations under intense examination, with filings in both New York and Pennsylvania courts highlighting systemic shortfalls. In one case from 2018, plaintiffs alleged that the company and its network of affiliates created impressions of reliability through coordinated efforts, yet consistently fell short on deliverables like press releases, custom webpages, and manufacturer introductions. These suits, seeking millions in damages, point to a structure where multiple entities work in tandem, each extracting fees at different stages without ensuring overall progress.

The resolution of related cases in 2023, following preliminary approvals in 2022, underscores the weight of these claims. While settlement details remain confidential, the very fact of these agreements signals acknowledgment of the issues raised. Inventors involved described feeling trapped in a web of assurances that unraveled, with attorneys arguing breaches of contract and violations of consumer protection standards. Such legal battles not only drain resources from both sides but also expose how the company’s model can lead to widespread dissatisfaction, prompting more people to come forward with their own unresolved grievances.

A Pattern of Criticism and Industry Warnings

Industry experts and federal officials have long sounded alarms about the state of invention promotion companies in the U.S. While hundreds of firms market themselves as gateways to innovation success, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has acknowledged that only a handful truly operate above board. The vast majority are routinely described in expert circles—and by the agency itself—as ineffective at best, or brazenly deceptive at worst.

Whistleblowers and seasoned patent attorneys have echoed these concerns, pointing to widespread compliance pitfalls and patterns of consumer harm. Federal consumer watchdogs and legal professionals regularly highlight a web of affiliated businesses that present themselves as independent while, in practice, working together to amplify fees and obscure true outcomes. Numerous complaints and lawsuits, many consolidated in federal court, have depicted a system where services often fall far short of what was promised: research left incomplete, marketing efforts that evaporate after payment, and manufacturing support that never materializes.

The improbability of success is not lost on those in the field. Even with thousands of dollars invested—sometimes well over $10,000 per inventor—data and expert testimony underline how rarely these services yield meaningful results. Industry insiders and whistleblowers have repeatedly emphasized that, rather than being springboards for new ideas, most promotion companies operate in a grey area that leaves aspiring inventors empty-handed and out of pocket.

Mandated Reforms Following Legal Action

As part of the 2023 class-action settlement, InventHelp was required to overhaul several of its core business practices. Among the key changes: they had to introduce a dedicated customer care team equipped to systematically document and resolve complaints—and to do so electronically for full traceability.

Additionally, the company must now maintain detailed digital records of all inventor concerns, ensuring both transparency and accountability throughout any dispute or issue. Their central Data Bank was also subject to a revamp, with updated protocols demanding not just accurate information, but stricter criteria for including only companies that actively engage with potential inventors.

To further address customer dissatisfaction, InventHelp was pressed to implement outreach programs designed to gather and act on client feedback, refining their services based on real experiences rather than superficial measures. Advertising practices underwent changes as well, with the settlement stipulating clearer, more prominent disclosures about project timelines—helping new clients understand exactly what to expect before making major commitments.

The USPTO’s Stark Assessment

Even the United States Patent and Trademark Office offers a sobering perspective: according to the agency’s own guidance, the vast majority of invention promotion firms are not only ineffective but frequently cross the line into questionable or fraudulent territory. Out of countless companies advertising their services to inventors, the USPTO estimates that only a handful nationwide are truly legitimate. For prospective inventors, this means navigating a marketplace where genuine support is exceedingly rare—and the odds are often stacked against those hoping to turn an idea into income.

“Project Mousetrap” and Regulatory Crackdowns

Regulatory scrutiny of invention promotion companies is nothing new. Back in 1997, the Federal Trade Commission launched its sweeping “Project Mousetrap” initiative, targeting widespread abuse by firms promising to bring inventors’ ideas to market. The campaign didn’t just single out a few bad players—it cast a net across the entire industry, citing rampant fraud that spanned well beyond isolated cases.

While some well-known companies managed to sidestep direct prosecution during this crackdown, the heightened attention rippled throughout the sector. Even prior to Project Mousetrap, several agencies, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, had raised red flags. Officials at the USPTO famously estimated that only a tiny handful of invention promoters nationwide could be considered legitimate—warned that out of an industry crowded with hundreds of hopefuls, most outfits delivered disappointing results at best, and outright scams at worst.

These moves put the industry on notice, making clear that federal regulators were watching and that legitimate inventors needed to tread carefully. In practice, however, the foundational problems remained entrenched. For most hopefuls, the line between genuine support and empty promises grew ever harder to identify.

A Precedent for Reform: The FTC’s Landmark Case

The seeds of broader consumer protection were sown in the wake of a five-year probe by the Federal Trade Commission beginning in 1994. After investigating widespread complaints from inventors, the FTC charged a major invention-submission company with misleading clients about the effectiveness of their promotional services. Though the company settled—agreeing to reserve $1.2 million for customer refunds while denying liability—the case illuminated glaring gaps in regulation.

This headline-making action didn’t just prompt restitution for the affected inventors. It also set a clear example of the need for industry-wide standards, ultimately prompting legislators to step in. The public scrutiny and regulatory findings paved the way for the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA), which now requires invention marketers to clearly disclose their actual track records with clients—information that was once routinely withheld or obscured. The FTC case, in effect, served as the catalyst that propelled Congress to ensure inventors had the right to know both the odds and obstacles before investing their hopes and savings.

Low Success Rates in Plain Sight

InventHelp’s own disclosures reveal a sobering truth: out of thousands of clients served between 2015 and 2017, only a tiny fraction saw any licensing deals, and even fewer recouped their fees. The company openly states that the invention world is a high-risk field where most ideas don’t generate income, positioning themselves as honest brokers amid less transparent competitors. Yet, this transparency comes after the fact, often buried in fine print rather than upfront in sales discussions, allowing initial excitement to build unchecked.

This admission, while candid, contrasts sharply with the motivational tone of their outreach. Inventors entering the process might skim these stats, focusing instead on the possibility of being the exception. In practice, though, the odds stack against them, with promotional efforts yielding generic outputs like basic videos or brochures that rarely attract serious interest. This disconnect fosters a sense of false hope, where the company’s warnings serve more as legal shields than genuine cautions, leaving many to ponder why such low outcomes aren’t more prominently featured to temper expectations from the start.

The Numbers Behind the Hype

Crunching the numbers reveals a sobering financial outlook for most would-be inventors. Take the average outlay—about $12,000 for services like patent searches and promotional materials—paired with a disclosed success rate hovering around 0.14%. Multiply those together, and the average expected return shrinks to less than $17.

This means that for every $12,000 poured into these programs, inventors can statistically expect to lose nearly the full amount, recovering just a tiny fraction of their investment. The negative expected value is substantial—essentially, hope and enthusiasm are set against a backdrop of high financial risk and slim odds, an equation that rarely balances out in the inventor’s favor.

Pressure Tactics During Sign-Ups

Sales interactions with InventHelp representatives frequently involve urgency, with discounts offered only if decisions are made swiftly—sometimes with warnings that consulting outside advisors could void deals. These moments are pivotal, as inventors, buoyed by positive feedback on their ideas, commit without full deliberation. The process feels collaborative at first, with reps acting as cheerleaders, but this intensity can cloud judgment, especially for those new to invention submission.

Once locked in, the momentum shifts, with additional upsells for extras like expedited reviews or enhanced marketing kits presented as must-haves for success. Inventors like those in the lawsuits recount feeling cornered, as backing out meant forfeiting initial payments. This approach, while common in sales, amplifies the stakes for participants already investing emotionally and financially, turning what should be a measured step into a rushed leap that later proves hard to retract.

Affiliated Networks and Layered Costs

InventHelp operates within a constellation of related companies, from credit providers to manufacturing arms, each handling a slice of the invention journey. This setup is marketed as a one-stop solution, streamlining the path to market, but it often results in layered fees that accumulate without coordinated results. For example, a loan from one affiliate might fund services from another, creating a chain of dependencies that inventors navigate blindly.

The interconnectedness raises concerns about accountability, as issues in one area—like a flawed patent search—cascade through the others without resolution. Plaintiffs in legal actions have described this as a coordinated effort that builds an aura of comprehensiveness, yet delivers fragmented support. Inventors end up juggling multiple contacts, each extracting value at their stage, which complicates tracking progress and amplifies the overall expenditure without a unified outcome.

Emotional Toll on Aspiring Creators

Beyond dollars, the journey with InventHelp takes a heavy emotional toll. Inventors pour heart into their concepts, viewing them as extensions of themselves, only to face rejection or inaction that chips away at confidence. The initial validation from reps—”your idea is unique and profitable”—fuels optimism, but subsequent letdowns foster self-doubt, making future creative pursuits feel riskier.

Family dynamics suffer too, as shared excitement turns to tension over mounting bills and unfulfilled hopes. Many describe a grieving process, mourning not just the lost money but the dream itself, which can linger as a cautionary tale shared with loved ones. This psychological weight underscores how invention services, when mismatched, don’t just affect wallets but whole outlooks, dimming the spark that drew people to innovate in the first place.

Industry Comparisons and Alternatives

In the broader invention assistance landscape, InventHelp stands out for its scale, but comparisons reveal why many seek other paths. Independent patent attorneys or online platforms offer targeted help without the bundled fees, allowing inventors to pace their investments based on verifiable needs. These options emphasize education upfront, teaching creators about market realities before commitments.

Shifting to such alternatives can empower individuals, fostering skills like self-patenting or crowdfunding that build long-term resilience. Stories from those who bypassed InventHelp highlight quicker pivots to viable strategies, avoiding the sunk-cost traps that prolong dissatisfaction. This contrast invites reflection on whether comprehensive packages truly serve or simply overwhelm, pointing toward simpler, more inventor-led approaches.

Calls for Greater Transparency

Greater openness in how companies like InventHelp operate could prevent many pitfalls. Requiring detailed breakdowns of service timelines and success metrics during initial contacts would level the playing field, letting inventors weigh risks informedly. Industry watchdogs advocate for standardized disclosures, ensuring that low odds are as prominent as potential upsides.

Implementing such changes might reshape the sector, weeding out models that rely on volume over value. For inventors, this means resources geared toward realistic guidance, perhaps through free workshops or vetted referrals, that honor the creative spirit without the haze of overpromising. Until then, the onus falls on individuals to probe deeply, but systemic shifts would safeguard more dreams from unnecessary derailment.

Conclusion

InventHelp’s journey reveals a troubling gap between the dreams it sells and the reality many inventors face. The stories of those who trusted the company highlight a pattern of high costs and unfulfilled promises, leaving aspiring creators with depleted funds and dampened spirits. Innovation demands more than bold ideas—it requires clear, honest support that respects the vulnerability of dreamers. For future inventors, these experiences underscore the need to seek transparent, verifiable paths forward. By choosing resources that prioritize real progress over flashy pitches, creators can protect their visions and pursue their goals in an industry already fraught with challenges, ensuring their ideas have a fighting chance to shine without unnecessary burdens.

Written by

Nancy Drew

Updated

1 month ago