College Collusion Cases Spike as Price-Sensitive Students Sue

Max Miller never applied to college using early decision, unlike some of his wealthier classmates who were more certain about their first-choice school and able to pay full tuition. Instead, the 21-year-old Californian applied the traditional way, hoping to compare financial aid offers from multiple schools.

Except none came. Miller has a full tuition bill at Washington University in St. Louis—more than $60,000 annually—where he enrolled in 2022.

Miller believes his tuition is artificially high due to colleges’ collusion.

“I’ve clearly been on the unfair end of the admissions process,” said Miller, a named plaintiff in a suit this month that accuses elite colleges of using early decision to raise student costs.

The schools are accused of using early decision to lock in wealthy students who can pay more, giving the schools power to raise tuition and harm more price-sensitive students, such as Miller. Early decision allows applicants to apply early but requires a commitment to attend if accepted.

Universities are grappling with antitrust pressure from private plaintiffs such as Miller, who have accused them of conspiring to raise tuition and limit financial aid. The schools face treble damages and demands for injunctive relief from plaintiffs who claim the schools illegally shared information, inflating tuition.

In a lawsuit by student plaintiffs in 2022, a group of universities are accused of illegally considering an applicant’s family income, assets, and school donations in admissions.

Fairness Concerns

The litigation scrutiny is forcing elite schools to entertain costly settlements, reevaluate information-sharing practices, and confront potential trials. Collectively, the cases raise larger questions about fairness in admissions and its effect on tuition.

The Trump administration is amplifying the trend, freezing funding for several elite schools including Harvard, Cornell, and Brown.

And in April, a group of House and Senate Judiciary Republicans began probing Ivy League schools, citing concerns they may have colluded to raise tuition.

“Universities are entering a phase where they are going to have to walk a tightrope between achieving their goals of fair access to education balanced against the administration’s challenges to the higher education model,” said Robin S. Crauthers, an antitrust partner at McCarter & English LLP.

‘Deep Pockets’

Higher education is an “appealing area” for private plaintiffs as they leverage widespread concerns about rising tuition and questions about the value of college degrees, said Tiffany Rider, an antitrust partner with Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP.

“Plaintiffs look for the deep pockets,” Rider said. “I think ideally the plaintiffs don’t want to take a lawsuit all the way through. The earlier the settlement the better for them.”

Two financial aid cases are also moving through the court system, including one that has seen a dozen elite colleges, including Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Columbia, settle for millions of dollars.

Organizations that coordinate law and medical school admissions are also being targeted.

Early Decision Claims

Miller and other plaintiffs sued 32 schools, including WashU, of misleading them into believing that early decision was legally binding, which in effect suppressed competition.

They allege that by locking in full-pay students early, students like them carry a higher financial burden. WashU, along with other defendant schools including Wesleyan and Johns Hopkins, didn’t respond to inquiries seeking comment.

A spokesperson for Middlebury College—also a defendant—said the school is unable to discuss pending litigation but that the college has had a “long commitment to meeting the full financial need of admitted undergraduate students and provides access through a variety of resources for academic, social and pre-professional opportunities.”

Through binding early decision, schools secure a large chunk of students who are less likely to need financial assistance, which in turn leads to less pressure on colleges to compete on top-line tuition prices, said Benjamin D. Brown, co-chair of the antitrust practice at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, which represents the plaintiffs.

“If you know that half your class will pay whatever price you set, and then the rest of your class has some price sensitivity, you will set your price higher—i.e., full tuition rate—than it would be if everyone was somewhat price sensitive,” Brown said.

‘Unorthodox’ Approach

The private antitrust bar’s focus on higher ed is “unorthodox,” as the goal for schools is to admit students and provide equal access to education—not maximize revenue, Crauthers said.

Universities have long thought certain information-sharing practices weren’t viewed as competitively sensitive, she said.

Plaintiffs have “moved that needle to say ‘no, someone’s financial aid number is competitively sensitive,’” Crauthers said. “The universities are not accustomed to having to be that constrained with their information.”

Proving the claims could be difficult as plaintiffs have to show a “meeting of the minds” in terms of an agreement, said Dodi Allocca, an antitrust attorney in Clifford Chance’s Washington office.

“You need to show communications between these schools,” Allocca said. “If each school is unilaterally deciding to have early decision as an option, then that’s not necessarily an illegal cartel agreement.”

Brown, also Cohen Milstein’s managing partner, stands by the case’s theory, saying colleges haven’t been viewing their collective action through an antitrust lens.

“One consequence of that is a willingness to make broad agreements or understandings with multiple competing entities,” he said.

Fairness?

Miller hopes his lawsuit will result in a system that is a little more thoughtful about fairness.

He is pursuing a double major in political science and philosophy-neuroscience-psychology, as well as a minor in legal studies, and is set to graduate in 2026.

Much of his family’s financial resources has gone to support his twin brother with a severe disability, he said.

Part of Miller’s motivation after graduation is to make good on the investment his family made in his college costs, Miller added.

“I feel there’s part of me that wants to make that up,” he said.

The early decision plaintiffs are also represented by Langer Grogan & Diver PC.

The case is D’Amico v. Consortium on Fin. Higher Educ., D. Mass., No. 25-12221, 8/8/25.