In 2021, Byju’s EdTech was the toast of India’s startup ecosystem. Valued at $22 billion, it was the country’s most valuable startup, ahead of Flipkart, Paytm, and everyone else. Founder Byju Raveendran graced magazine covers as a visionary transforming education. Shah Rukh Khan endorsed the brand. Investors including Mark Zuckerberg’s foundation poured billions into the company. Parents lined up to buy courses promising their children would ace exams. The future looked limitless.
Three years later, Byju’s EdTech faced insolvency proceedings. The company laid off thousands of employees, often without proper severance. Investors sued alleging financial mismanagement. Auditors refused to sign off on accounts. Regulators investigated predatory sales practices. The valuation collapsed from $22 billion to potentially zero. Byju Raveendran went from billionaire hero to cautionary tale about what happens when aggressive growth meets questionable practices.
The Meteoric Rise
Byju’s EdTech started in 2011 as Byju Raveendran’s offline coaching classes for CAT exam preparation. Raveendran was a brilliant teacher whose methods genuinely helped students, building organic word-of-mouth reputation. The transition to online video lessons in 2015 tapped into smartphone growth and parental anxiety about children’s education. The early product had real value, engaging video lessons that made learning enjoyable.
COVID-19 turbocharged growth. With schools closed, desperate parents sought online learning solutions. Byju’s was perfectly positioned, offering free classes that attracted millions. The user base exploded from 40 million to 150 million during the pandemic. Investors saw this growth and poured money in, pushing valuation from $6 billion in 2019 to $22 billion by 2022. The company raised over $5 billion in funding, more than almost any Indian startup ever.
The expansion spree:
- 2021: valued at $22 billion, India’s most valuable startup
- Ahead of Flipkart, Paytm, everyone else
- Byju Raveendran graced magazine covers as visionary transforming education
- Shah Rukh Khan endorsed the brand
- Mark Zuckerberg’s foundation poured billions
- 2024: facing insolvency proceedings
- Thousands laid off without proper severance
- Investors sued alleging financial mismanagement
- Auditors refused to sign off on accounts
- Valuation collapsed $22 billion to potentially zero
The acquisition spree revealed ambition but questionable strategy. WhiteHat Jr for $300 million to enter coding education. Aakash Educational Services for nearly $1 billion to strengthen test-prep. Epic for $500 million for US market entry. Great Learning for $600 million for upskilling segment. Byju’s EdTech was trying to become everything to everyone: K-12 learning, test prep, coding, upskilling, international expansion.
The Marketing Blitz
Byju’s spent hundreds of millions on marketing, more than any EdTech competitor. Shah Rukh Khan became brand ambassador, lending celebrity credibility. IPL sponsorships put the brand everywhere during cricket season. Digital ads flooded YouTube and social media. The marketing created massive brand awareness but also massive cash burn. Customer acquisition costs were reportedly Rs 10,000-15,000 per paid user, unsustainably high relative to lifetime value.
The free trial strategy hooked users but conversion rates were problematic. Millions downloaded the app for free content, but only small percentages converted to paying customers. The gap between claimed user base (150 million) and paying customers (6-7 million) revealed that most “users” were just trying free content without intent to pay.
The Toxic Sales Practices
Where Byju’s EdTech truly damaged its reputation was aggressive, predatory sales tactics. Parents reported high-pressure sales calls after downloading the app. Salespeople called repeatedly, sometimes dozens of times, pushing parents to buy multi-year courses worth Rs 50,000-150,000. These tactics worked short-term, generating revenue that impressed investors, but created long-term brand toxicity.
The loan push was particularly controversial. Byju’s partnered with NBFCs to offer easy loans, encouraging parents to finance courses. Salespeople downplayed loan implications, focusing on affordable EMIs rather than total debt. Many parents didn’t fully understand they were taking loans, not just paying installments. When financial troubles hit families, they couldn’t afford EMIs, damaging credit scores while Byju’s had already collected upfront from the NBFC.
Predatory tactics:
- 2011: offline coaching classes for CAT exam preparation
- Brilliant teacher methods genuinely helping students
- 2015: online video lessons tapping smartphone growth and parental anxiety
- COVID-19: schools closed, desperate parents sought online learning
- User base: 40 million to 150 million during pandemic
- Valuation: $6 billion in 2019 to $22 billion by 2022
- Raised $5+ billion in funding
- WhiteHat Jr: $300 million, Aakash: nearly $1 billion
- Epic: $500 million, Great Learning: $600 million
- K-12 learning, test prep, coding, upskilling, international expansion
Mis-selling allegations emerged regularly. Parents claimed they were sold courses inappropriate for their children’s age or level. Refund policies were complicated and often not honored. Customer service was reportedly terrible, with complaints going unanswered. Online communities filled with angry parents sharing horror stories. This negative word-of-mouth eventually outweighed positive marketing, damaging Byju’s EdTech brand beyond repair in many customer segments.
The Employee Pressure
Salespeople faced brutal targets and pressure. Reports emerged of toxic work culture where missing sales targets meant public humiliation, salary cuts, or termination. This pressure drove salespeople to use aggressive tactics that generated short-term sales but long-term customer dissatisfaction. The company prioritized revenue growth over customer satisfaction, creating a ticking time bomb of angry customers.
Teachers and content creators also reported issues. Despite being an education company, Byju’s reportedly undervalued educators, focusing resources on sales and marketing instead. Content quality suffered as expansion outpaced capability to create high-quality learning materials.
The Spectacular Collapse
By 2022, cracks appeared. Auditor Deloitte resigned, refusing to sign off on financial statements, citing governance concerns. This was a massive red flag that something was seriously wrong. Investors including Prosus marked down valuations dramatically, admitting they’d overvalued Byju’s. The $1.2 billion term loan from international lenders became contentious when Byju’s EdTech allegedly missed payments and transparency obligations.
Mass layoffs began in late 2022 and continued through 2023-24. Over 5,000 employees lost jobs, often with little notice or severance. Former employees reported delayed salaries, unpaid bonuses, and sudden terminations. The company that spent lavishly on marketing and acquisitions suddenly couldn’t pay employees properly.
The downfall:
- Shah Rukh Khan brand ambassador, IPL sponsorships
- Hundreds of millions on marketing
- Customer acquisition costs: Rs 10,000-15,000 per paid user
- 150 million claimed users vs. 6-7 million paying customers
- Free content without intent to pay
- High-pressure sales calls after downloading app
- Multi-year courses worth Rs 50,000-150,000
- Partnered with NBFCs offering easy loans
- Downplayed loan implications, focused on affordable EMIs
- Parents didn’t understand they were taking loans
Insolvency proceedings filed by creditors in 2024 threatened complete collapse. The BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) moved to recover Rs 158 crore in unpaid sponsorship dues. Lenders wanted their money back. Investors fought with founders over control and strategy. Byju Raveendran, once celebrated as visionary, faced accusations of financial mismanagement and lack of transparency.
The Customer Betrayal
The real victims were students and parents who’d paid for multi-year subscriptions. With Byju’s EdTech facing closure, would their courses remain accessible? Would they get refunds? Most didn’t, losing thousands while Byju’s fought for survival. This betrayal of customer trust was the final nail in the brand’s coffin.
What It Reveals About EdTech
The Byju’s collapse exposes harsh truths about EdTech business models. Education is fundamentally different from e-commerce or food delivery. It requires consistent quality, long-term student engagement, and genuine learning outcomes. But Byju’s treated education like a scalable tech product, optimizing for growth metrics rather than learning effectiveness. This fundamental mismatch between business model and service reality doomed sustainability.
Venture capital’s role in the disaster deserves scrutiny. Investors poured billions into Byju’s based on user growth and addressable market size, not profitability or unit economics. This forced Byju’s EdTech to grow unsustainably fast, burning cash on marketing and acquisitions to justify valuations. When investors eventually demanded profitability, the company couldn’t deliver because the business model never made sense.
EdTech realities:
- Mis-selling: courses inappropriate for children’s age or level
- Complicated refund policies often not honored
- Terrible customer service, complaints going unanswered
- Angry parents sharing horror stories
- Salespeople: brutal targets, toxic work culture
- Missing sales targets: public humiliation, salary cuts, termination
- Teachers and content creators undervalued
- Resources focused on sales and marketing vs. educators
The EdTech hype cycle proved worse than most tech sectors. COVID-19 created temporary demand that investors extrapolated infinitely. They assumed online learning would permanently replace traditional education, ignoring that most parents and students prefer in-person schooling when available. When schools reopened, EdTech demand crashed, exposing that much pandemic growth was situational, not structural.
Regulation Failure
Regulation failure also enabled Byju’s excesses. Indian regulators didn’t adequately oversee EdTech companies’ sales practices, loan partnerships, or advertising claims. This let companies like Byju’s operate predatorily for years before facing consequences. Stricter oversight earlier might have prevented worst abuses, protecting consumers while forcing more sustainable business practices.
The Bottom Line
Byju’s EdTech transformed from India’s most celebrated startup to its most spectacular failure because it prioritized growth over everything else. Growth over customer satisfaction. Growth over employee welfare. Growth over financial sustainability. Growth over educational effectiveness. This growth-at-all-costs mentality, fueled by investor pressure and founder ambition, created short-term success but inevitable long-term collapse.
The cautionary tale:
- 2022: Auditor Deloitte resigned, refusing to sign off on financial statements
- Governance concerns massive red flag
- Investors including Prosus marked down valuations dramatically
- $1.2 billion term loan: allegedly missed payments
- Late 2022-2024: 5,000+ employees lost jobs
- Little notice or severance, delayed salaries, unpaid bonuses
- 2024: insolvency proceedings filed by creditors
- BCCI moved to recover Rs 158 crore unpaid sponsorship dues
- Students and parents with multi-year subscriptions losing thousands
The biggest lesson: sustainable businesses require sustainable practices. You can’t build lasting companies through predatory sales, excessive spending, and financial engineering. Education especially requires trust, quality, and long-term thinking that conflicts with venture capital’s growth demands. Byju’s proves that some businesses shouldn’t take VC money or pursue unicorn valuations because the pressure to grow kills the very qualities that made them valuable.
Indian EdTech will recover from this collapse, but hopefully with more realistic expectations, better governance, and genuine focus on learning outcomes over vanity metrics. The Byju’s era is over, and that’s probably good for everyone, especially the students and parents who deserved better than what they got.
