Kim Kardashian admits to failing the California bar exam and promises to retake it. The admission, published on November 8, 2025, on Instagram, responds to a birthday sequence. Indeed, she criticizes "psychic scams" and critiques mediums, calling them "pathological liars." From the personal to the public, the episode sheds light on a flourishing psychic market in the age of platforms. Moreover, it reopens the debate on its regulation.
The Birthday Sequence and Public Admission
The scene unfolds in a few seconds filmed in the warm light of a birthday. Kris Jenner is celebrating her 70th birthday. Amid the laughter, her daughter Kim Kardashian expresses a cold anger. She targets "psychics" and denounces a psychic scam regarding her success at the California bar. She calls them "pathological liars," in her own words. On the same day, on Instagram, she confirms the essential: she did not pass the summer exam and will retake it. No dithering. "No shortcuts, no giving up," she summarizes.
The announcement is widely shared. The media relay the video and the message. Platforms amplify it. Amid the viral wave, one detail remains: the most scrutinized celebrity on the planet recounts a simple and clear academic failure and ties it to a promise: to continue until success.
A Long-Term Candidate
Since 2019, Kim Kardashian has been following the alternative path known as the Law Office Study Program, an apprenticeship course in a law firm, outside the traditional law school, allowed by California. She passed the First-Year Law Students’ Exam in December 2021, after several attempts. She patiently checks the boxes, from the MPRE to long-term review. She is not a lawyer and has not yet passed the bar exam. She wants to become one and does not hide it, without holding a law degree. Her father, Robert Kardashian, was one. The legacy weighs, as does the era.
The exam she faces takes place over two days. It includes five one-hour essays, a 90-minute performance test, and 200 multiple-choice questions on the American common core. The State Bar of California details its scope and subjects on its website, without romance and without indulgence. The summer 2025 session delivered its results on November 8, 2025 to candidates; the institution published global statistics in the following days. Kim Kardashian assures that she came "very close." She clings to this "almost" like one clings to a handrail on a slippery staircase.
This trajectory plays out against the backdrop of another story, pop and flashy. The star plays the lead role in All’s Fair, an American legal series distributed on Hulu and Disney+. The contrast is striking. The brilliant heroine on screen, the determined student in real life. The fiction received a harsh critical reception in the United States. The Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes nearly hit rock bottom, a sign of a tumultuous reception despite the project’s media power. The star continues the promotion, confident that the audience will eventually form its own opinion.
Anger Against Psychics and Scams, Not a Verdict
Let’s return to the diatribe. The words spoken in the TikTok sequence target specific individuals: mediums — Kim Kardashian accuses them of false promises. Explicitly attributed to Kim Kardashian, the expression is a reaction in the heat of the moment. It cannot be considered a global judgment on "psychics." Let’s be wary of shortcuts. However, the episode is symptomatic: belief, even among the most rational in Silicon Valley or Hollywood, retains a magnetic power. When deciding, doubting, trembling, many seek signs, cards, voices that reassure.
A Solid, Discreet, Polymorphic Market
Psychics are not part of a marginal folklore. They occupy a real market, fueled by ancient practices and new platforms. France stands high in this landscape. Estimates vary, but report an annual turnover of several billion euros for the country, with a thriving offer: consultations in offices, premium-rate audiotel, services by SMS, TikTok and YouTube lives, specialized marketplaces. The number of practitioners is counted in tens of thousands. In terms of population, opinion polls show a constant: a notable fraction of the French have consulted at least once, another says they might do so.
Globally, the purely online segment is experiencing rapid growth, fueled by the immediacy of flows and the habit of micro-payments. The market now talks about remote "readings," video packages, and credits converted into virtual gifts. Moreover, on lives, each animation triggers monetization. Platforms take their commission. Visibility serves as a showcase and authority. The smartphone becomes the table where cards are shuffled.
How Does It Pay Off?
The economy of psychics relies on simple pricing models. In offices, the session is billed by time: an hour or sometimes thirty minutes. Prices vary from the "test" consultation to a few dozen euros. Additionally, they include the more ambitious fees displayed by renowned card readers. Remotely, audiotel charges by the minute via premium-rate numbers. Lines like 0892 and similar have enriched call centers. Moreover, they aggregate profiles, standardize scenarios, and optimize waiting lines. In live, the logic reverses: access is public, personalization is paid for in the form of gifts with monetary value, converted into diamonds, then into euros. On TikTok, the gift grid ranges from a cent to hundreds of symbolic euros. The platform retains a significant share of the revenue. Overall, these mechanisms create a rental income fueled by a continuous audience and the repetition of micro-transactions.
The Mechanisms of Credulity in the Age of Infinite Scrolling
Why does it work so well? Because the promise responds to an emotion. Psychics offer to reduce uncertainty. They provide ready-to-wear stories in which one can project oneself. Social psychology studies describe the attraction to general statements that seem specific to each person. The vaguer the formula, the more it applies. The algorithm, in turn, pushes what we have already liked. A well-lit tarot sequence, a soothing tone, diaphanous music, and one lingers. The social proof completes the picture: comments scroll by, "it works" reassures, message captures comfort. The audience becomes a witness, then a sounding board.
In this landscape, celebrities sometimes serve as barometers. Their use of readings becomes public information. From their confidences, we deduce clues that we elevate to trends. The Kardashian case illustrates this shift. Indeed, a failed exam and a few statements are enough to reopen the conversation. It concerns an economic universe that thrives discreetly, except when failure casts a harsh light on it.
Notorious Scams, Jurisprudence, Red Lines
Recent history has seen high-profile cases. In the United States, the so-called "Miss Cleo" saga left a mark. In the early 2000s, the Federal Trade Commission obtained a settlement requiring hotline operators to forgo hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and pay fines, after practices deemed deceptive. The political message was clear: commercial promises must be kept, even in the world of divination.
In France, the law remains clear on one point: belief is free, but deception and abuse of weakness are criminally punished. Authorities remind that a seller exploiting a person’s vulnerability faces severe penalties. Decisions also remind that no guarantee of result can be claimed for a psychic service. The qualification of fraud emerges as soon as maneuvers aim to extract sums under false promises.
In the field of telephone services, premium-rate numbers have long served as a deterrent. Convictions have sanctioned aggressive setups. Platforms today outsource part of the control to internal rules: age limits, price transparency, prohibition of unfounded promises. The filter remains porous. Moderations are strengthened, without eliminating the gray area.
What the Kardashian Case Says About Our Time
A conclusion is clear. A star capable of orchestrating her narrative to the millimeter can, in a few stories, soften a setback. Thus, she can turn it into a fable of perseverance. The episode could have remained private. It becomes a public moment that raises another question: why entrust mediums with this burden? Indeed, the outcome of an exam known for its difficulty and the grading scale, published, should be announced differently. The answer may lie in the loneliness exposed by competitions. We like someone to say "you will succeed." We pay for that. We like, we share. We return.
The California bar has not changed for all that. It has codified a format, stabilized a threshold, clarified a method. Statistics show that not everyone succeeds, even with serious work. Kim Kardashian fits into this human average. She is not alone. She faces it with a consistency that commands respect. If the series she is involved in garners critical mockery, her legal journey is written in the future.
Towards More Readable Regulation
Should there be more regulation? The debate resurfaces with each scandal. The arguments are known. On one side, the freedom of belief and entertainment. On the other, the need to protect consumers from practices that sometimes target vulnerable people. One approach is to clarify the display of prices, regulate advertising, and impose a clear mention: psychics guarantee nothing. Another focuses on platforms: making the commission taken visible, indicating the real value of gifts, facilitating recourse in case of abuse. The State, through its services, already reminds of rights and ways to complain. It remains to invest in the new scene of live.
The issue touches on broader questions. What we know about cognitive biases meets what we practice in interfaces: an endless thread, a succession of promises, the compulsion of swiping. Media education must now include a chapter on these economies of attention. We must learn to identify the moment when solicitation becomes insistence, then harassment. We must learn to recognize the pseudo-scientific dressing of certain discourses. Above all, we must rehabilitate the right to not know.
After Failure, Perseverance and Distancing from Oracles
Kim Kardashian failed an exam. She said it. She criticized psychics who promised her the inevitable. She goes back to work. It’s a more ordinary story than it seems. It reminds us that success remains a moving line and that a promise is not a contract. It also says something about our time: the search for certainties is monetized, as is doubt. In the middle, there are still rules. Institutions publish them. Authorities explain them. The rest belongs to each person’s judgment.