A federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which was accused of conspiring with law schools to fix application fees and control the admissions process. The complaint, filed in August 2025 by Linvel Risner, alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, involving LSAC and its 197 American Bar Association-approved member law schools. However, U.S. District Judge John Murphy found the allegations “implausible” and the complaint “unclear and self-contradictory,” though he acknowledged that Risner had antitrust standing and alleged concerted action by the LSAC.
Risner accused LSAC of monopolistic behavior, pointing to charges that included a $215 Credential Assembly Service subscription fee and an additional $45 per application, regardless of each law school’s requirements. According to Risner, LSAC paid substantial grants to member schools, which he characterized as “kickbacks” to secure their allegiance. Over three years, the LSAC reportedly collected $93 million in fees. Nevertheless, Judge Murphy concluded that Risner failed to sufficiently define the antitrust markets under the rule of reason and determined that the monopolization claim was lacking due to the dual service nature of the platform, which interacts with both applicants and law schools.
In its defense, LSAC maintained that its actions constituted lawful, unilateral price-setting rather than a conspiracy. It argued that the centralized application process offers competitive efficiencies to both applicants and schools. Judge Murphy has granted Risner until May 12 to file an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which remains under Murphy’s jurisdiction in Philadelphia. The details of the case can be reviewed here.
This dismissal highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in antitrust litigation, particularly in defining relevant markets and demonstrating harm. As noted in similar cases, establishing the parameters for what constitutes antitrust violations in educational services often demands more than generalized accusations. This case continues a series of legal battles scrutinizing the practices of academic institutions and their associated organizations under antitrust laws.