A federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit claiming Columbia University , dozens of other private universities , and the College Board coordinated to inflate tuition costs for students from divorced families. According to the Columbia Spectator, Maxwell Hansen, a student at Boston University , and Eileen Chang, a former student at Cornell University , filed the case, Hansen v. Northwestern University et al., in October 2024.
The plaintiffs claimed that by consistently using noncustodial parent financial data, or NCP data, to calculate aid awards, the universities had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act . They maintained that this practice hindered university competition and made it impossible for any one university to provide more generous or flexible aid.The lawsuit estimated that students from separated or divorced families faced tuition increases averaging $6,200.
Court finds allegations insufficientU.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis dismissed the case without prejudice. In her ruling, she wrote that the plaintiffs’ allegations were “conclusory and lacking in plausibility.” She noted that the complaint referred to “concerted action” and “collective effort” but did not provide sufficient detail to show an illegal agreement.
“Nothing in Plaintiffs’ complaint suggests that the University Defendants exchanged their own internal financial aid decisionmaking processes or guidelines,” Ellis wrote, as reported by the Columbia Spectator. “Nor does the complaint allege that the University Defendants all agreed on the same exact formula for calculating financial aid.”
The court also dismissed claims against universities located outside Illinois, citing lack of personal jurisdiction. Ellis emphasized that similarity in financial aid policy across institutions does not itself constitute collusion under federal antitrust law.
Role of the college boardThe lawsuit also named the College Board, which manages the CSS Profile system used by Columbia and other private institutions to collect detailed family financial information. The plaintiffs alleged that coordination occurred through the College Board’s CSS Financial Assistance Assembly Council. This council addresses issues related to financial guidance, policy research, and programs for students.
Jessica Marinaccio, dean of undergraduate admissions and financial aid at Columbia, chairs the council and is also a College Board trustee. According to the plaintiffs, the council facilitated coordination among universities, resulting in uniform financial aid practices.
Universities decline commentColumbia University declined to comment on the dismissal of the case. The law firm representing the plaintiffs, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, did not respond to requests for comment.
Congressional attentionThe allegations drew attention from Congress and higher education policy experts. In April 2025, both the House and Senate judiciary committees requested that Columbia and other universities provide communications related to admissions and financial aid dating from 2019 to the present. The committees cited potential Sherman Act violations in their request.
Legal experts said congressional inquiries do not determine liability but can bring broader scrutiny to institutional policies. Universities must provide extensive documentation and explanations of their decisionmaking processes.
Previous scrutiny of Columbia’s financial aid practicesColumbia’s financial aid practices have faced scrutiny before. In 2024, the University agreed to pay $24 million to settle a separate class-action lawsuit. That case alleged Columbia misrepresented its financial aid policies as “need-blind” for admitted students.
Similar issues with fairness and transparency in aid distribution were brought to light by the current case. The court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs had not presented enough proof of coordination in violation of federal antitrust law.
Legal standards under the Sherman ActUnder Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, plaintiffs must show more than parallel conduct. They must prove a “contract, combination, or conspiracy” that unreasonably restrains trade. Ellis found that the plaintiffs did not meet this legal standard. The court clarified that universities making similar policy decisions independently is not illegal.
Next steps for plaintiffsThe plaintiffs have not announced whether they plan to appeal the dismissal. The ruling leaves open the possibility that they could revise their complaint and attempt to meet the court’s standard for plausibility.
Legal analysts said that even without a successful lawsuit, such cases can influence discussions about transparency and fairness in financial aid practices. Universities may adjust policies to avoid perceptions of uniformity or anti-competitive behavior.
(With inputs from the Columbia Spectator’s report.)
The plaintiffs claimed that by consistently using noncustodial parent financial data, or NCP data, to calculate aid awards, the universities had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act . They maintained that this practice hindered university competition and made it impossible for any one university to provide more generous or flexible aid.The lawsuit estimated that students from separated or divorced families faced tuition increases averaging $6,200.
Court finds allegations insufficientU.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis dismissed the case without prejudice. In her ruling, she wrote that the plaintiffs’ allegations were “conclusory and lacking in plausibility.” She noted that the complaint referred to “concerted action” and “collective effort” but did not provide sufficient detail to show an illegal agreement.
“Nothing in Plaintiffs’ complaint suggests that the University Defendants exchanged their own internal financial aid decisionmaking processes or guidelines,” Ellis wrote, as reported by the Columbia Spectator. “Nor does the complaint allege that the University Defendants all agreed on the same exact formula for calculating financial aid.”
The court also dismissed claims against universities located outside Illinois, citing lack of personal jurisdiction. Ellis emphasized that similarity in financial aid policy across institutions does not itself constitute collusion under federal antitrust law.
Role of the college boardThe lawsuit also named the College Board, which manages the CSS Profile system used by Columbia and other private institutions to collect detailed family financial information. The plaintiffs alleged that coordination occurred through the College Board’s CSS Financial Assistance Assembly Council. This council addresses issues related to financial guidance, policy research, and programs for students.
Jessica Marinaccio, dean of undergraduate admissions and financial aid at Columbia, chairs the council and is also a College Board trustee. According to the plaintiffs, the council facilitated coordination among universities, resulting in uniform financial aid practices.
Universities decline commentColumbia University declined to comment on the dismissal of the case. The law firm representing the plaintiffs, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, did not respond to requests for comment.
Congressional attentionThe allegations drew attention from Congress and higher education policy experts. In April 2025, both the House and Senate judiciary committees requested that Columbia and other universities provide communications related to admissions and financial aid dating from 2019 to the present. The committees cited potential Sherman Act violations in their request.
Legal experts said congressional inquiries do not determine liability but can bring broader scrutiny to institutional policies. Universities must provide extensive documentation and explanations of their decisionmaking processes.
Previous scrutiny of Columbia’s financial aid practicesColumbia’s financial aid practices have faced scrutiny before. In 2024, the University agreed to pay $24 million to settle a separate class-action lawsuit. That case alleged Columbia misrepresented its financial aid policies as “need-blind” for admitted students.
Similar issues with fairness and transparency in aid distribution were brought to light by the current case. The court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs had not presented enough proof of coordination in violation of federal antitrust law.
Legal standards under the Sherman ActUnder Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, plaintiffs must show more than parallel conduct. They must prove a “contract, combination, or conspiracy” that unreasonably restrains trade. Ellis found that the plaintiffs did not meet this legal standard. The court clarified that universities making similar policy decisions independently is not illegal.
Next steps for plaintiffsThe plaintiffs have not announced whether they plan to appeal the dismissal. The ruling leaves open the possibility that they could revise their complaint and attempt to meet the court’s standard for plausibility.
Legal analysts said that even without a successful lawsuit, such cases can influence discussions about transparency and fairness in financial aid practices. Universities may adjust policies to avoid perceptions of uniformity or anti-competitive behavior.
(With inputs from the Columbia Spectator’s report.)
You may also like
South Africa Women vs Bangladesh Women pitch & weather updates: Will rain play spoilsport?
We're Playing For Ashes; They're Playing For Moral Victory: Warner Mocks England's 'Bazball'
Ambulance skids on oil spill, collides with truck on Jaipur-Ajmer Highway; two dead
BJP gave 101 seats to JDU, now Nitish will not become CM and LoP either: Congress' Pramod Tiwari
Planning to buy gold on Dhanteras? Learn about 3 easy ways to invest.
