On Friday, August 8, a class action lawsuit alleging that college early decision admissions processes violate federal antitrust laws was filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The complaint named Vassar and 31 other selective colleges and universities as defendants. The plaintiffs are four students and recent graduates from schools named in the lawsuit—one from Vassar, one from Washington University in St. Louis and two from Wesleyan University.
Each of the 32 colleges and universities either are or have been members of the Consortium of Financing Higher Education (COFHE), another named defendant in the lawsuit. COFHE is an unincorporated organization of selective, private liberal arts colleges and universities; COFHE also facilitates information sharing between these institutions. The lawsuit additionally names Common Application and Scoir, which operates the Coalition Application, as defendants. These are both widely used platforms to send early decision and regular decision applications to schools.
Early decision is an admissions process in which applicants can increase their chances of acceptance by sending a single, restrictive application to their top-choice institution. In doing so, students agree that if they are accepted, they will withdraw all other applications and attend their early decision choice. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants use early decision policies to artificially inflate tuition costs for early decision applicants; as schools lose the incentive to negotiate on prices for early decision admits the overall price of tuition increases.
Early decision is not a legally binding process. Instead, it more closely resembles an honor-bound agreement and has no enforceable contractual obligations. The lawsuit emphasizes, however, that defendants—for example, the Common Application—falsely portray the early decision contract as legally binding. Consequently, many students believe they are legally bound to attend their early decision institutions prior to receiving financial aid offers.
In addition to application platforms, the lawsuit asserts, “The participating colleges and universities benefit from the fact that early decision is not legally binding.” Schools also benefit from the ability to rescind or withdraw acceptances if the admitted students’ grades decline after being accepted.
While the early decision contracts are not legally binding, the lawsuit claims that defendants prompt students to consider the ethical responsibilities of the admissions process, writing, “The guide lists ‘[having] more than one pending Early Decision application’— immediately after plagiarism—as an example of an ‘ethical’ violation.” Furthermore, The lawsuit states, “When participating schools receive such lists [of students who applied early decision], they routinely remove those students from their own application processes.” This information is stated in the context of the lawsuit’s claim that COFHE allegedly shares information between its members. The lawsuit maintains that if applicants break agreements with their early decision choices, they risk losing admission to other institutions.
Citing previous academic articles and interviews by admissions officials, the lawsuit alleges that early decision is an unlawful conspiracy. It claims the process renders potential students unable to negotiate financial aid offers, as they cannot compare costs of their early decision institution with offers given by other schools. The lawsuit states that this practice puts students from middle- and lower-income families at a disadvantage, as they are subsequently less likely to apply early decision. Allegedly, this allows higher-income students to reap the benefits of increased acceptance rates without worrying about higher tuition costs. While Vassar’s overall acceptance rate is 18.6% according to the College’s official Class of 2028 Profile, its early decision acceptance rate of 33% is significantly higher, as reported in the U.S. News and World Report. The lawsuit additionally criticizes the high percentage of students admitted to elite institutions through early decision each year, which upholds the systemic inequalities of higher education. According to Vassar’s 2024–2025 Common Data Set, 47% of Vassar’s Class of 2028 was admitted through early decision.
The complaint states, “The schools lose their incentive to compete on price for students admitted through Early Decision, driving up overall ‘top line’ tuition levels and reducing both need-based and merit-based aid for Early Decision admittees. The result is that both Early 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.”
Jude Robinson ’26, from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the plaintiff attending Vassar. In written correspondence, Robinson provided The Miscellany News with a press release on the case from Langer Grogan & Diver P.C. (LGD). LGD is the law firm that, with co-counsel Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, is representing the four plaintiffs.
In the press release, Robinson stated, “It 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.”
Robinson stated to The Miscellany News that they had no additional comment.
When asked for a comment responding to the ongoing lawsuit, Vassar Vice President of Communications Victoria Grantham wrote via email to The Miscellany News, “We believe that this claim is based on inaccurate information. This is especially true for Vassar as we do not share early decision names with other institutions and we meet 100% of demonstrated need regardless of whether the student is accepted in an Early or Regular Decision round. Due to the fact that this is a pending lawsuit, we are unable to provide additional details at this time.”
Grantham added, “Every school that gives need-based aid like Vassar has an online calculator, so at any time in the application process, students and families can see a good estimate of what it will cost to attend any of the colleges that offer need-based aid.” Vassar’s Financial Services webpage states, however, that the estimate provided through its tuition calculator is not a definitive reflection of the final price of tuition for the applicant.
LGD’s press release specifies the plaintiffs’ desired outcome of the lawsuit, stating, “The antitrust class action seeks an 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 going forward.” LGD goes on to emphasize the importance of transparency and competition over secrecy and collusion.
Due to the ongoing nature of the lawsuit, this is a developing story which may have additional updates in the future.