Current and former college students have filed a motion seeking class-action status in a high-profile lawsuit, demanding at least $685 million in damages from 17 prestigious U.S. universities. The students allege that these institutions favored wealthy applicants to secure donations, resulting in less financial aid for those who were truly in need.
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2022, claims that the universities violated U.S. antitrust laws by breaching a long-standing commitment not to consider applicants’ financial backgrounds in admission decisions. This alleged collusion, which spanned more than 20 years, involved an estimated 224,000 students who were allegedly denied fair access to financial aid.
The plaintiffs argue that the universities’ actions created an unfair advantage for wealthy applicants, undermining the integrity of the financial aid system. According to the suit, this resulted in millions of dollars in damages to students who were deprived of the financial assistance they rightfully deserved. The plaintiffs’ request for $685 million in damages could triple to over $2 billion if the court rules in their favor, as U.S. antitrust law allows for triple damages.
Several of the universities involved, including Brown, Yale, and Columbia, have already settled with the plaintiffs for a combined total of $284 million, while continuing to deny the allegations. The remaining institutions facing the lawsuit include the University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, and Cornell University.
In a statement, the University of Pennsylvania called the lawsuit “meritless” and stated that the evidence clearly shows no preference was given to applicants based on their families’ financial contributions. The other universities named in the lawsuit have similarly dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims and challenged the damages estimate as “fundamentally unreliable.”
However, Robert Gilbert, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the evidence strongly supports the students’ claim that the universities engaged in illegal coordination over financial aid. “We have substantial evidence that the defendants colluded for over two decades to limit financial aid for students, ultimately harming those who needed it most,” Gilbert said.
The universities contend that their coordination on financial aid policies was covered by a now-expired 1994 federal law, which shielded “need-blind” schools from liability. The plaintiffs argue that this federal immunity does not apply, as evidence shows that the schools did, in fact, take applicants’ financial situations into account when making admissions decisions.
The case, Henry v. Brown University, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:22-cv-00125).
Read more: