Top Colleges Sued: Did Early Decision Rig Tuition Prices?

Case Overview: A class action alleges 31 prestigious universities conspired to inflate tuition costs through the binding early decision admissions process, violating federal antitrust law.

Consumers Affected: Undergraduates at the defendant schools who either applied through early decision with partial aid or enrolled without receiving grant-only aid.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Some of the most prestigious universities in the U.S. conspire to inflate tuition costs through the early decision admissions process, a new proposed class action lawsuit alleges. 

The complaint, filed in federal court in Boston, targets Columbia University, Duke University, the University of Pennsylvania, and 29 other schools, along with the Common Application and the Coalition App. 

According to the lawsuit, these institutions used the binding early decision process not only to lock in students but also to shield themselves from competition, driving up the overall cost of attendance. Students who filed the lawsuit argue this amounts to a clear violation of federal antitrust law.

Students Accuse Colleges of Manipulating Admissions Process

The lawsuit is being led by four former and current students: Alayna D’Amico and Bram Silbert, who both attended Wesleyan University, Max Miller of Washington University in St. Louis, and Bella Robinson of Vassar College.

Each student applied through either the early decision or regular admissions process and claims they paid inflated tuition as a result of the alleged conspiracy. For early decision applicants like D’Amico, Robinson, and Silbert, the binding nature of their admission offers meant they could not compare aid packages or negotiate with other schools, the lawsuit claims. 

Miller, who entered through regular decision, argues that he still faced higher costs because of the pricing power the system gave to participating colleges.

The four say the arrangement unfairly disadvantaged both groups, early decision students lost leverage to shop around, while regular decision students were left competing for fewer slots at higher prices.

Lawsuit Alleges Early Decision Drives Up Prices and Limits Choice

At the center of the complaint is early decision itself, a system where students apply early to their top-choice school and commit to attending if admitted. Because acceptance rates are often higher for these applicants, the process is attractive to those hoping for an edge in admissions.

But according to the lawsuit, the system has become a tool for colleges to identify wealthier, less price-sensitive applicants who can afford full tuition. By locking in these students, schools avoid competitive bidding and financial aid negotiations. This allows them to set tuition levels thousands of dollars higher than comparable schools that do not use early decision.

Although schools frame early decision as a binding agreement, the lawsuit points out that it is not legally enforceable. Many students are under 18 when they commit, and universities reserve the right to withdraw offers or change terms, leaving applicants with little protection.

Other Antitrust Lawsuits Target Industries Accused of Rigging Markets

This lawsuit is part of a wave of antitrust actions targeting industries accused of rigging markets.

High school athletes have accused California Interscholastic Federation and its corporate partners of stopping them from reaping the profits of their efforts, while veterinary medicine interns have filed a lawsuit arguing hospitals, universities, and veterinary associations fix wages and restrict competition for early-career vets. 

Other alleged collusion lawsuits include academic publishing, and even the packaging industry. 

The students are asking to represent a class of all undergraduates at the defendant schools who either applied through early decision with partial aid or enrolled without receiving grant-only aid.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: D’Amico, et al. v. Consortium on Financing Higher Education, et al.
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-12221-JDH
• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Daniel H. Silverman, Benjamin D. Brown, Richard A. Koffman, Daniel McCuaig, and Alex Bodaken (Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC)
• Edward Diver, Peter Leckman, and Kevin Trainer (Langer Grogan & Diver P.C.)

Did the early decision process influence your college application? Share your thoughts on this lawsuit in the comments below.