32 Colleges Sued over Early Decision
August 29, 2025
On August 8, 2025, four university students and one recent graduate filed an antitrust class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, placing 32 of the country鈥檚 most elite universities under fire for their Early Decision practices. The students claim that Early Decision practices create a monopoly in higher education that continues to favor high-income students who can pay the full tuition price. They claim that Early Decision practices disadvantage lower-income students who benefit from weighing competing financial aid options before committing to a school.听
The plaintiffs are seeking 鈥渁n injunction to end the use of binding Early Decision, past damages for students forced to pay more than they would have, and broad structural reforms in how colleges conduct admissions and deliver financial aid,鈥� Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the law firms representing the students, wrote in .听听
Early Decision: What鈥檚 the Issue?
The plaintiffs want the courts to file an injunction to end the practice of binding Early Decision among America鈥檚 colleges and universities (among other things).听
奥丑测?听
The students claim that Early Decision (or Early Action) forces students to pay higher tuition prices than they would otherwise if they had the chance to compare financial aid offers between different schools. During the Early Decision application process, students sign an agreement saying that they will accept admission to a school if they are offered admission during that time. Because of this, applicants feel they must legally accept the first offer without being given the time to compare offers from other schools.听
But, attorneys for the plaintiffs argue, the universities have no legal standing to constrain students to accepting the first Early Decision offer they receive. They simply skate on the fact that students won鈥檛 challenge the practice because they鈥檝e already signed an agreement saying they will accept鈥攁nd many students fear the prospect of losing out on admission at a competitive school if they were to reject an offer.
But that鈥檚 not the biggest problem here. The real legal issue at stake is the monopoly created by an enforced lack of competition between the colleges and universities during Early Decision.
Do Early Decision Applicants Truly Have Fewer Choices?
Yes. Highly competitive students who apply during Early Decision don鈥檛 get offers from other schools. How is that possible? Because the universities have agreed among themselves not to 鈥減oach鈥� students who have been offered early admission elsewhere. The students claim that this practice creates a monopoly between the universities鈥攕tudents literally don鈥檛 have access to a better offer when they apply Early Decision.听
鈥淚t does not seem fair that, in order to put my chances of admission on a level playing field with my peers, I had to give up the right to compare the cost of attendance at different schools. I thought I would get more financial aid than I did, but I never got a chance to weigh other options,鈥� said Jude Robinson, a plaintiff in the case and a current Vassar College student.听听
Do Early Decision Students End Up With Higher Tuition Bills?
Sometimes, yes. Essentially, much of the issue stems from the fact that colleges are:听
- Super expensive and听
- Super competitive听
Costs only ever go up, but now with colleges and universities facing an 鈥渆nrollment cliff鈥� in which they stand to lose tuition dollars due to declining birth rates, universities are even more motivated to find every last cent of full-tuition where they can find it.听
However, students find it so appealing to apply during the Early Decision cycle because acceptance rates are higher during ED. If you have a 鈥渄ream school鈥� in mind, it seems statistically beneficial to apply early, and counselors often push students in this direction. The 鈥渂inding鈥� part of an Early Decision application hardly seems applicable to students when they consider getting into their school of their dreams. What students don鈥檛 realize is that they鈥檙e paying full price for that dream.听
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that Early Decision permits schools to pinch students even more than they could otherwise鈥攊ncluding those who apply during the regular, non-Early Decision application cycle.
The attorneys that, 鈥渢he effect on price is clear. The schools lose their incentive to compete on price for students admitted through Early Decision, driving up overall 鈥榯op line鈥� tuition levels and reducing both need-based and merit-based aid for Early Decision admittees. The result is that both Early Case Decision and non-Early Decision students pay higher prices than they would have paid absent the conspiracy at the center of the Early Decision scheme.鈥�
The plaintiffs allege that this is true for them. They could have saved money through competitive financial aid packages. Historically, this has been proven for other students, which has resulted in the following arguments:
Early Decision Restrains Trade听
In the case, the attorneys cite Charles Deacon, the current and long-time Dean of Admissions at Georgetown University (which does not practice Early Decision), who said, 鈥淎 cynical view is that early decision is a programmatic way of rationing your financial aid. First, the ED pool is more affluent, so you spend less money enrolling your class. And then there is absolutely no need to compete on financial packages.鈥澨�
Deacon went on to say that he was dealing with a very competitive student who was admitted during Georgetown鈥檚 non-binding admissions programs and comparing it with the financial aid package from another elite, famous, East Coast school with a binding Early Decision plan. That school offered the student a plan that was 鈥渁ll grant, no loan,鈥� which would benefit the student more in the long run. Deacon contended that the school gave the student the competitive offer chiefly because it was in competition with Georgetown.听
鈥淚f she had applied there early decision, they wouldn鈥檛 have had to do that,鈥� Deacon said.听
The attorneys for the plaintiffs call this lack of competition a 鈥渞estraint on trade.鈥� And they argue that 鈥渦niversity insiders鈥� have long known about the negative effects the practice has on students.听
Early Decision Violates Antitrust Laws
Vanderbilt University is being sued in this case, and Vanderbilt鈥檚 own general counsel, Ruby Shellaway, argued in the Yale Law Journal way back in 2006 that Early Decision practices represented an 鈥渦nlawful conspiracy that violated antitrust laws.鈥� The schools literally send out a list of the students they will accept under Early Decision, and all the other ED universities agree not to make offers to potentially lure those students away.听
鈥淚n the remaining negotiations, the student has given up his leverage: He cannot make a credible threat to go elsewhere, because his name has already been removed from other schools鈥� applicant pools,鈥� Shellaway argued.听
Attorneys for the students say that the whole problem is made worse by the fact that the universities themselves actually acknowledge that such practices are distinctly unfair and harmful to applicants.
In a wide-ranging investigative article in The Atlantic from all the way back in 2001, writer James Fallows documented just how widespread the recognition of inequality is. 鈥淓veryone involved with the early-decision process admits that it rewards the richest students from the most exclusive high schools and penalizes nearly everyone else,鈥� Fallows wrote, as quoted in the case .听
The fact that Fallows wrote the article more than 20 years ago and that Early Decision practices have largely stayed the same in those two decades points to just how much universities profit from the system: the most competitive students apply and accept whatever offer they receive, afraid that they will face legal consequences if they don鈥檛 accept, and are never given the chance to engage the schools in meaningful competition between themselves.听
鈥淚t鈥檚 also a textbook antitrust violation鈥攁 horizontal agreement between competing schools not to compete,鈥� said Edward Diver, partner at Langer Grogan & Diver P.C., a firm that also represents the plaintiffs.
Who Are the Plaintiffs?
Two out of the four plaintiffs applied to their universities through Early Decision and paid the full cost of attendance. One applied through Regular Decision and paid the full cost of attendance. One of the plaintiffs paid part of the full cost of attendance after being admitted through Early Decision.
Alayna D鈥橝mico applied and was accepted to Wesleyan University through its binding Early Decision program. She paid the full cost of attendance.听
Bram Silbert applied and was accepted to Wesleyan University through its binding Early Decision program. He paid the full cost of attendance.
Max Miller applied and was accepted to Washington University through the Regular Decision process and received no financial aid. He is currently a student and expects to pay the full price of tuition.听
Bella 鈥淛ude鈥� Robinson applied and was accepted to Vassar College in its binding Early Decision program. Jude has paid part of the full cost of attendance, having received grants, loans, and a work study offer as part of their financial aid package. They are currently a student.听
Who鈥檚 Being Sued?
There are 32 different colleges and universities named in the lawsuit, along with three other organizations and institutions related to higher education.听
The colleges and universities are:
- Amherst College, in Massachusetts.
- Barnard College, in New York.
- Bowdoin College, in Maine.
- Brown University, in Rhode Island.
- Bryn Mawr College, in Pennsylvania.
- Carleton College, in Minnesota.
- Columbia University, in New York.
- Cornell University, in New York.
- Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire.
- Duke University, in North Carolina.
- Emory University, in Georgia.
- Haverford College, in Pennsylvania.
- Johns Hopkins University, in Maryland.
- Macalester College, in Minnesota.
- Middlebury College, in Vermont.
- Mount Holyoke College, in Massachusetts.
- Northwestern University, in Illinois.
- Oberlin College, in Ohio.
- Pomona College, in California.
- Rice University, in Texas.
- Smith College, in Massachusetts.
- Swarthmore College, in Pennsylvania.
- Trinity College, in Connecticut.
- University of Chicago.
- University of Pennsylvania.
- University of Rochester, in New York.听
- Vanderbilt University, in Tennessee.
- Vassar College, in New York
- Washington University in St. Louis.
- Wellesley College, in Massachusetts.
- Wesleyan University, in Connecticut.
- Williams College, in Massachusetts.
The organizations are:
- The Consortium on Financing Higher Education is an unincorporated organization of colleges and universities with its principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts.听
- The Common Application, Inc., is a private, non-profit institution with its principal place of business in Arlington, Virginia.听
- Scoir Inc., the owner of the Coalition App, is a private, for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in West Chester, Pennsylvania.听听
The lawsuit alleges that these organizations facilitate the sharing of information about students admitted via Early Decision. Students applying to these elite schools frequently use The Common App and Scoir to apply. Scoir bars students from submitting more than one Early Decision application. The Common App allows colleges to remove students from their list of prospective candidates if they are accepted elsewhere via Early Decision.听
Relevant Resources
