Law School Admission Council Hit With Fee Price-Fixing Case (1)

The organization that administers the LSAT and coordinates law-school admissions was sued in federal court with claims that it fixes prices for law school application processing fees through a monopolistic platform.

Plaintiff Linvel Risner alleges that Law School Admission Council Inc. overcharged him for application platform fees and that he would have paid much less in a competitive market, according to the proposed class action filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Organizations that oversee higher education credentials have become an increasing target for private antitrust lawsuits, including in the medical field.

“LSAC has violated federal antitrust law and gouged law school applicants attempting to follow their dreams,” Risner said in the Monday complaint.

An LSAC spokesperson said in a statement Tuesday to Bloomberg Law that the organization strongly disagrees with the assertions in the suit.

“We are committed to expanding access to legal education and supporting prospective students every step of their journey to law school,” the spokesperson said.

LSAC manages registration and test dates for the Law School Admission Test. It is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and disclosed a total compensation of more than $830,000 for its president and CEO on its most recent public tax form.

LSAC overcharges fees required to access its law school application platform, which houses academic records, letters of recommendations, LSAT scores and other documents that are then forwarded on to law schools, Risner alleges.

According to the complaint, LSAC and its member law schools colluded to eliminate competition in both the application and law school side of its platform, the complaint said.

LSAC “uses the profits of the price-fixed application fees to pad its bank account and then kickback money to Member Law Schools,” according to the complaint.

“To incentivize Member Law Schools to quash competition between themselves on application price and quality, they receive substantial benefits from their price-fixing agreement,” the complaint says.

Risner seeks relief under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as well as the Clayton Act.

Risner is represented by Hilgers Graben PLLC.

The case is Risner v. Law School Admission Council, E.D. Pa., No. 2:25-cv-04461, 8/4/25.