Hansen V Northwestern Complaint

Case: 1:24-cv-09667 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/07/24 Page 1 of 52 PageID #:1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Maxwell Hansen and Eileen Chang, individually No. ___________________

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
Northwestern University, College Board,

American University, Baylor University, Boston
College, Boston University, Brandeis
University, Brown University, California
Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon
University, Case Western Reserve University,
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City
of New York, Cornell University, Trustees of
Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory
University, Fordham University, George
Washington University, Georgetown University,
Harvard University, The Johns Hopkins
University, Lehigh University, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, University of Miami,
New York University, Northeastern University,
University of Notre Dame du Lac, The Trustees
of the University of Pennsylvania, William
Marsh Rice University, University of Rochester,
University of Southern California, Southern
Methodist University, Stanford University,
Syracuse University, Tufts University, Tulane
University, Villanova University, Wake Forest
University, Washington University in Saint
Louis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Yale
University,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................... 5
III. THE PARTIES ................................................................................................ 6
A. Plaintiffs ................................................................................................ 6
B. Defendants ............................................................................................. 8
IV. TUITION COSTS AND STUDENT DEBT HAVE

INCREASINGLY BURDENED STUDENTS AND THEIR
FAMILIES .....................................................................................................21
V. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS ..................25
A. Defendants collectively participate in the College Board

that develops a shared financial aid methodology used by
all University Defendants .................................................................... 25
B. Defendants collectively developed the NCP Agreed

Pricing Strategy ...................................................................................27
C. Since 2006, College Board and the University

Defendants have collectively used the NCP Agreed
D. The University Defendants Participate In, Facilitate, and

Implement the Conspiracy related to the NCP Agreed
VI. EFFECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY .............................................................34
VII. RELEVANT MARKET AND DEFENDANTS’ MARKET

POWER .........................................................................................................35
VIII. CONTINUING ACCRUAL AND THE DISCOVERY RULE ....................42
A. Continuous accrual ..............................................................................42
B. The discovery rule ............................................................................... 42
-i-
IX. CLASS ALLEGATIONS ..............................................................................43
X. CLAIM FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................46
COUNT 1 SHERMAN ACT SECTION 1 ..............................................................46
REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................48
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ...............................................................................49
- ii -
Plaintiffs, Maxwell Hansen and Eileen Chang, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, bring this class action under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act against College Board, American University, Baylor University, Boston
College, Boston University, Brandeis University, Brown University, California
Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon University, Case Western Reserve
University, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Cornell
University, Trustees of Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory University,
Fordham University, George Washington University, Georgetown University,
Harvard University, The Johns Hopkins University, Lehigh University,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Miami, New York University,
Northeastern University, Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame du
Lac, The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, William Marsh Rice
University, University of Rochester, University of Southern California, Southern
Methodist University, Stanford University, Syracuse University, Tufts University,
Tulane University, Villanova University, Wake Forest University, Washington
University in Saint Louis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Yale University
(collectively, “Defendants”).
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Paying for college is one of the landmark financial burdens millions of
students and parents face. Families often spend years planning and saving to pay for
-1-
college and many incur long lasting debt, sometimes debt they cannot afford. It’s
always been a major financial burden and has gotten worse in the last two decades.
University students’ tuition debts have skyrocketed. According to the Board of
Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, Student Loans Owned and
Securitized in the first quarter of 2006 were almost $481 billion dollars.1 In the
second quarter of 2024, those debts grew to $1.745 trillion.2 From 1980 to 2020, the
average price of tuition, fees, room, and board for an undergraduate degree increased
by 169% in constant 2019 dollars, according to Georgetown University.3 But over
the same 40-year period, earnings for workers ages 22 to 27 only increased by 19%
in constant 2019 dollars.4 “It used to be possible to work one’s way through college;
today, college costs are generally too high—and young people’s wages too low—
for that to be feasible. Consequently, more students have to take on larger amounts
of debt to get a college degree.”5
2. The Defendants’ conduct at issue here has only made matters worse.
Beginning in 2006 and continuing to the present defendant College Board and
1
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLOAS#.
2
Id.
3
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1062945/cew-
all_one_system-fr.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, p.13.
4
Id.
5
Id., p. 12 (footnotes omitted).
-2-
defendant universities (the “University Defendants”) exacerbated those student debt
problems.6 In violation of Section 1 the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, Defendants
have engaged in concerted action to require a noncustodial parent of any applicant
seeking non-federal financial aid to provide financial information (the “NCP Agreed
Pricing Strategy”). That concerted action substantially raised the prices that
Plaintiffs and Class members pay to attend college. Absent this agreement the
University Defendants would have competed in offering financial aid in order to
enroll their top candidates.
3. Defendant College Board sets certain standards related to financial aid.
College Board member institutions include the University Defendants. Starting in
2006, College Board made an intentional push to require schools to agree to the
consideration of the income and assets of noncustodial parents when making
financial aid determinations. The effort was led and organized by individuals from
the University Defendants.
4. The efforts of Defendants were successful as the University Defendants
collectively agreed to consider the income and assets (hereinafter, collectively
“assets”) of noncustodial parents when making financial aid determinations.
Currently, all University Defendants have committed to the NCP Agreed Pricing
6
“University Defendants” are all defendants except for the College Board.
-3-
Strategy and require applicants seeking financial aid to submit a CSS Profile, which
is “an online application used by colleges and scholarship programs to award non-
federal institutional aid.”7 The application is “submitted through the sign on link
available at cssprofile.org.”8 “Each year CSS Profile unlocks access to more than
$10 billion in nonfederal aid to thousands of students.”9 Each Defendant’s financial
aid website provides a link to the CSS Profile website for the requirement that all
noncustodial parents provide financial information as a requirement for submitting
an aid application. And pursuant to the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy each
University Defendant considers the income of the noncustodial parent in
determining how much aid to offer.
5. Defendants’ concerted action has unlawfully caused the net price of
education to increase. Net price is the cost per student of tuition plus room and board,
decreased by financial aid. The average net price for the forty Defendant universities
who use the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy is approximately $6,200 more than for
the ten non-NCP universities in the top 50 private universities – indicative of the
anticompetitive effects from Defendants’ concerted activity.
7
https://cssprofile.collegeboard.org/about.
8
Id.
9
https://cssprofile.collegeboard.org/.
-4-
6. Defendants’ conduct is per se anticompetitive because it constitutes an
agreement between horizontal competitors related to price. And Defendants’
concerted activity is also illegal under the rule of reason and “quick look” modes of
analyses. The relevant geographic market is the United States. The relevant product
market is defined as the 50 national universities with best average U.S. News &
World Report ranking from 2008 through 2023 (the most recent year in which Class
Members applied to any of Defendants). Together, this comprises the relevant
antitrust market for elite, private Universities, which includes the forty Defendants,
all of which use the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This action arises under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
and under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26.
8. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and under Sections
4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26.
9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants based on the
nationwide service provisions of Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22.
Moreover, each Defendant has (1) transacted business in the United States and in
this District, including by recruiting, and advertising for, students residing in this
District; (2) transacted business with Class Members throughout the United States,
including those residing in this District; and (3) committed substantial acts in
-5-
furtherance of an unlawful scheme in the United States, including in this District.
Each Defendant has recruited, accepted, enrolled, and charged artificially high net
prices of attendance to, and thus injured, individuals residing within this District.
10. Venue is proper in this District under 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 22 and 26, and
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c), and (d), because each Defendant transacted business, was
found, had agents, and/or resided in this District; a substantial part of the events
giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims arose in this District; and a substantial portion of the
affected interstate trade and commerce described herein has been carried out in this
District.
III. THE PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
11. Maxwell Hansen attended American University from the fall of 2021
through the fall of 2023 and then transferred to Boston University where he is
currently a student. Before applying to colleges, Hansen was required to submit a
CSS Profile. As part of this process, Hansen’s custodial parent and noncustodial
parent were required to provide information to support his aid application. On the
CSS Profile, Hansen was asked about the expected contribution he would receive
from his noncustodial parent, and he answered $0. Hansen received about
$15,000/year in financial aid from American University and about $20,000/year in
financial aid from Boston University. He is paying the rest of his tuition with student
-6-
loans and his mother is a co-signer. As expected, Hansen’s father has not contributed
to his tuition. Hansen paid artificially high prices and continuing through present for
American University and Boston University because of Defendants’ anticompetitive
practices and thereby suffered antitrust injury. Until recent weeks, Hansen did not
know that Defendants had entered into the conspiracy alleged in this Complaint or
that the conspiracy caused him to suffer financial harm.
12. Eileen Chang attended Cornell University from 2017 to 2021. Before
applying to colleges, Chang submitted financial aid forms including the CSS Profile.
As part of this process, Chang’s custodial parent and noncustodial parent were
required to provide information to support her aid application. Chang’s noncustodial
parent is on disability and has a much higher income than her custodial parent. When
Chang attended Cornell University, the tuition was around $70,000/year. She
received both federal and nonfederal financial aid and all of the financial aid she
received was need-based. Chang emailed Cornell University’s financial aid office to
ask if they could remove her noncustodial parent’s income because this parent was
on disability and unable to contribute. Chang’s request was denied, and she was told
that noncustodial parents are expected to help pay tuition. Chang’s custodial parent
took out a Parent Plus loan to pay for the rest of her tuition. She paid artificially high
prices to attend Cornell University because of Defendants’ anticompetitive practices
and thereby suffered antitrust injury. Until recent weeks, Chang did not know that
-7-
Defendants had entered into the conspiracy alleged in this Complaint or that the
conspiracy caused her to suffer financial harm.
B. Defendants
13. College Board develops and administers standardized methodologies
related to the college admissions process, including the CSS Profile for financial aid.
14. American University (“American”) became a College Board member
on October 31, 1962. American’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile
website and requires that applicants with a noncustodial parent must comply with
the NCP requirements of the CSS Profile.10
15. Baylor University (“Baylor”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1965. Baylor’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website for
the requirement that applicants with a noncustodial parent must comply with the
NCP requirements on the CSS Profile website.11
16. Boston College became a College Board member on October 31, 1952.
Boston College’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website and requires
that applicants with a noncustodial parent must comply with the NCP requirements
of the CSS Profile.12
10
https://www.american.edu/financialaid/.
11
https://onestop.web.baylor.edu/frequently-asked-questions#css-profile.
12
https://www.bc.edu/bc-web/offices/student-services/financial-aid/financial-
aid-forms.html.
-8-
17. Boston University became a College Board member on October 31,
1947. Kelly Walter, who is the Associate Vice President for Enrollment & Dean of
Admissions at Boston University, currently serves as a regionally elected trustee on
the Board of Trustees for the College Board. Boston University’s financial aid
website links to the CSS Profile website and requires that applicants with a
noncustodial parent must comply with the NCP requirements of the CSS Profile.13
18. Brandeis University (“Brandeis”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1954. Brandeis’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
and requires that applicants with a noncustodial parent must comply with the NCP
requirements of the CSS Profile.14
19. Brown University (“Brown”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1954. Brown’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
20. California Institute of Technology (“CalTech”) became a College
Board member on October 31, 1949. CalTech’s financial aid website links to the
13
https://www.bu.edu/finaid/how-aid-works/eligibility/parents-not-married/.
14
https://www.brandeis.edu/student-financial-services/financial-
aid/apply/index.html.
15
https://finaid.brown.edu/apply/first-year-us.
-9-
CSS Profile website and requires that applicants with a noncustodial parent must
comply with the NCP requirements of the CSS Profile.16
21. Carnegie Mellon University (“Carnegie Mellon”) became a College
Board member on October 31, 1930. Carnegie Mellon’s financial aid website links
to the CSS Profile website and requires that applicants with a noncustodial parent
must comply with the NCP requirements of the CSS Profile.17
22. Case Western Reserve University (“Case Western”) became a College
Board member on October 31, 1903. Case Western’s financial aid website links to
the CSS Profile website and requires that applicants with a noncustodial parent must
23. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
(“Columbia”) became a College Board member on December 31, 1900. Jessica
Marinaccio, who is the Dean of Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid at
Columbia, currently serves as a national assembly elected trustee on the Board of
Trustees for the College Board and also serves as the Chair of the College Board’s
CSS Financial Assistance Assembly Council. Columbia’s financial aid website links
16
https://www.finaid.caltech.edu/applying/forms/ncponline#:~:text=Your%20noncus
todial%20parent%20can%20begin,Profile%20as%20a%20noncustodial%20parent.
17
https://www.cmu.edu/sfs/financial-aid/undergraduate/fafsa-cssprofile.html.
18
https://www.questbridge.org/partners/college-partners/case-western-reserve-
university/application-requirements.
- 10 -
to the CSS Profile website and requires that applicants with a noncustodial parent
must comply with the NCP requirements of the CSS Profile.19
24. Cornell University (“Cornell”) became a College Board member on
December 31, 1900. Cornell’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
25. Trustees of Dartmouth College (“Dartmouth”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1907. Dartmouth’s financial aid website links to the CSS
Profile website and requires that applicants with a noncustodial parent must comply
with the NCP requirements of the CSS Profile.21
26. Duke University (“Duke”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1950. Christoph Guttentag, who is the Dean of Undergraduate
Admission at Duke, currently serves as a national assembly elected trustee on the
Board of Trustees for the College Board. Miranda McCall, who is Senior Associate
19
https://cc-seas.financialaid.columbia.edu/content/14-15-css-noncustodial-
profile-continuing.
20
https://finaid.cornell.edu/apply-for-aid/first-year-and-transfer-students-us;
https://finaid.cornell.edu/special-circumstances/family-circumstances.
21
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/glossary-term/css-profile;
https://admissions.dartmouth.edu/glossary-question/what-if-my-parents-are-
divorced-or-
separated#:~:text=Dartmouth%20believes%20that%20both%20biological,informat
ion%20from%20the%20noncustodial%20parent.
- 11 -
Director of Financial Support at Duke, “has served as financial aid’s regional
representative to the College Board” and “serves on the [College Board’s] Financial
Aid Standards and Services Advisory Committee (FASSAC), responsible for
informing Institutional Methodology policy and practice.”22 Duke’s financial aid
website links to the CSS Profile website and requires that applicants with a
noncustodial parent must comply with the NCP requirements of the CSS Profile.23
27. Emory University (“Emory”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1951. Emory’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
28. Fordham University (“Fordham”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1952. Fordham’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
22
https://forms.hr.duke.edu/training/leadership/scholars/profile.php?profileid=10044
7/.
23
https://financialaid.duke.edu/forms-resources/faq/all-parent-faqs/;
https://admissions.duke.edu/financial-support/#apply.
24
https://studentaid.emory.edu/undergraduate/apply/new-students/index.html
(under “Submit Your Tax Documents”).
- 12 -
29. George Washington University (“George Washington”) became a
College Board member on October 31, 1948. Elizabeth Chacko, who is a Professor
of Geography and International Affairs at George Washington, currently serves as a
nationally elected trustee on the Board of Trustees for the College Board. George
Washington’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website and requires that
applicants with a noncustodial parent must comply with the NCP requirements of
the CSS Profile.26
30. Georgetown University (“Georgetown”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1949. Georgetown’s financial aid website links to the CSS
31. Harvard University (“Harvard”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1904. Jessica Bryan, who is the Associate Director of Financial Aid and
25
https://www.fordham.edu/undergraduate-financial-aid/how-to-
apply/prospective-and-incoming-students-us-citizens-and-eligible-non-
citizens/regular-decision/.
26
https://financialaid.gwu.edu/policy-parental-contribution-dependent-students;
https://financialaid.gwu.edu/how-apply.
27
https://bulletin.georgetown.edu/expenses-and-
financialassistances/studentfinancialservices/.
- 13 -
Senior Admissions Officer at Harvard, currently serves on the College Board’s CSS
Financial Assistance Assembly Council. Harvard’s financial aid website links to the
32. The Johns Hopkins University (“Johns Hopkins”) became a College
Board member on December 31, 1900. Thomas McDermott, who is the Associate
Vice Provost for Financial Aid & Executive Director for Student Financial Services
at Johns Hopkins, currently serves as a national assembly elected trustee on the
Board of Trustees for the College Board and also serves on the College Board’s CSS
Financial Assistance Assembly Council, of which he is the Past Chair. Johns
Hopkins’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website and requires that
the CSS Profile.29
33. Lehigh University (“Lehigh”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1941. Lehigh’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
28
https://college.harvard.edu/resources/faq/what-should-i-do-if-css-profile-
noncustodial-household-missing.
29
https://sfs.jhu.edu/frequently-asked-questions/ (“My parents are
divorced/separated. Are there any other forms that must be completed?”).
- 14 -
34. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) became a College
Board member on October 31, 1902. Leslie Bridson, who is the Director of Student
Financial Services at MIT, currently serves on the College Board’s CSS Financial
Assistance Assembly Council. MIT’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile
35. University of Miami (“Miami”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1965. Miami’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
36. New York University (“NYU”) became a College Board member on
December 31, 1900. MJ Knoll-Finn, who is the Senior Vice President for Enrollment
Management at NYU, currently is a regionally elected trustee on the Board of
Trustees of the College Board. NYU’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile
30
https://www.lehigh.edu/~infao/forms/(DIV1)_Noncus_Parent_Profile_Instructions.
pdf.
31
https://sfs.mit.edu/undergraduate-students/apply-for-aid/domestic/.
32
https://finaid.miami.edu/applying-for-aid/prospective-current-
student/index.html.
- 15 -
37. Northeastern University (“Northeastern”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1957. Northeastern’s financial aid website links to the CSS
38. Northwestern University (“Northwestern”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1946. Northwestern’s financial aid website links to the CSS
39. University of Notre Dame du Lac (“Notre Dame”) became a College
Board member on October 31, 1947. Notre Dame’s financial aid website links to the
33
https://www.nyu.edu/admissions/financial-aid-and-scholarships/applying-
and-planning-for-undergraduate-aid/how-to-apply/regular-decision.html.
34
https://studentfinance.northeastern.edu/applying-for-aid/undergraduate/how-
to-
apply/#:~:text=Students%20whose%20biological%20parents%20are,University's
%20school%20code%20is%203667.
35
https://undergradaid.northwestern.edu/information-for/parents/divorced-
separated.html.
36
https://financialaid.nd.edu/apply-or-renew/first-year-applicants/.
- 16 -
40. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”) became a
College Board member on December 31, 1900. William Schilling, former director
of student financial aid at Penn, formerly served on the College Board’s Financial
Aid Standards and Services Advisory Committee and the College Board’s CSS
Financial Assistance Assembly Council.37 Penn’s financial aid website links to the
41. William Marsh Rice University (“Rice”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1955. Rice’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile
42. University of Rochester (“Rochester”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1936. Rochester’s financial aid website links to the CSS
37
https://allaccess.collegeboard.org/remembering-bill-schilling.
38
https://srfs.upenn.edu/financial-aid/undergraduate-aid-program/how-we-
determine-
need#:~:text=Non%2DCustodial%20Parents&text=In%20order%20to%20be%20c
onsidered,on%20the%20College%20Board%20website.
39
https://financialaid.rice.edu/expected-family-contribution;
https://financialaid.rice.edu/forms-resources/frequently-asked-questions (“What if
my parents are divorced?”).
- 17 -
43. University of Southern California (“USC”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1928. Kedra Ishop, who is Vice President for Enrollment
Management at USC, currently serves as a nationally elected trustee on the Board of
Trustees of the College Board. USC’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile
44. Southern Methodist University (“SMU”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1959. SMU’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile
45. Stanford University (“Stanford”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1939. Stanford’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
40
https://www.rochester.edu/financial-aid/css-profile/.
41
https://www.admissionblog.usc.edu/p/usc-fast-facts-your-guide-to-financial.
42
https://www.smu.edu/enrollmentservices/financialaid/process/helpfulhints/undergr
aduate.
- 18 -
46. Syracuse University (“Syracuse”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1942. Syracuse’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
47. Tufts University (“Tufts”) became a College Board member on October
31, 1910. Tufts’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website and requires
48. Tulane University (“Tulane”) became a College Board member on
October 31, 1957. Tulane’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website
49. Villanova University (“Villanova”) became a College Board member
on October 31, 1954. Villanova’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile
43
https://financialaid.stanford.edu/undergrad/apply/requirements/rd_us.html.
44
https://financialaid.syr.edu/howtoapply/undergrad/noncustodial-profile-ncp/.
45
https://students.tufts.edu/financial-services/undergraduate-aid/aid-
awarding/divorced-or-separated-parents.
46
https://financialaid.tulane.edu/apply/aid.
- 19 -
50. Wake Forest University (“Wake Forest”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1961. Wake Forest’s financial aid website links to the CSS
51. Washington University in Saint Louis (“Washington University”)
became a College Board member on October 31, 1959. Ronné P. Turner, who is Vice
Provost for Admissions and Financial Aid at Washington University, was Chair of
the Board of Trustees for the College Board from 2020 to 2022 and currently serves
on the Board of Trustees. Michael Runiewicz, who is the Assistant Vice Provost &
Director of Student Financial Services at Washington University, currently serves
on the College Board’s CSS Financial Assistance Assembly Council. Washington
University’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website and requires that
47
https://www1.villanova.edu/university/office-of-financial-
assistance/financial-aid-process/first-year-students.html (under “Submit Your
Profile”).
48
https://financialaid.wfu.edu/resources/policies/#20220808171306.
- 20 -
the CSS Profile.49
52. Worcester Polytechnic Institute (“Worcester”) became a College Board
member on October 31, 1956. Worcester’s financial aid website links to the CSS
53. Yale University (“Yale”) became a College Board member on October
31, 1909. Yale’s financial aid website links to the CSS Profile website and requires
IV. TUITION COSTS AND STUDENT DEBT HAVE INCREASINGLY

BURDENED STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES
54. As the New York Times reports, “There are few challenges facing
students more daunting than applying and paying for college.”52 “Saving and paying
for college is an endurance test, a forced march on an often 50-year parade, where
49
https://financialaid.wustl.edu/applying-for-aid/first-time-
applicants/#:~:text=The%20Noncustodial%20Parent%20Profile%20is,parents%20
are%20separated%20or%20divorced (under “Submit the CSS Profile”).
50
https://www.wpi.edu/faq/my-parents-are-divorced-separated-and-they-share-
custody-which-considered-noncustodial-parent.
51
https://finaid.yale.edu/forms/css-profile; https://finaid.yale.edu/award-
letter/financial-aid-terminology/parent-share.
52
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/business/college-payment-
loans.html.
- 21 -
strange numerical codes and senseless jumbles of letters mark a route that Waze
can’t map.”53 And as the New York Times further reports, “Admitted to a great
school? Good, but the grant money it offers based on that [student aid index] or other
data or the figures that another form, the CSS Profile, belches out is probably not
enough to make college affordable. So you could apply for a federal PLUS loan for
parents, which might take you 25 years to repay.”54
55. The Washington Post reports that as a result of the difficulties of paying
for college, “[s]ome 45 million Americans have debt from student loans totaling
more than $1.7 trillion. People have now borrowed more for education than for
anything else except houses.”55 Total student debt is greater than debt from auto
loans and credit cards combined.56
56. The average debt of graduates varies based on the type of institution
according to U.S. News & World Report data. Graduates in 2022 from a ranked
private college borrowed more on average, at $23,627, than public college graduates,
53
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/business/college-tuition-money.html.
54
Id.
55
https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2024/09/10/burdened-student-debt-
crisis-review-liebenthal/.
56
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-student-loan-debt-trends-economic-
impact.
- 22 -
who took out $20,371.57 “Borrowing is often tied to the cost of college tuition and
fees, which, per U.S. News & World Report data, has more than doubled over the
last 20 years across ranked private and public National Universities (schools that are
often research-oriented and offer bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees).” 58
57. According to William Boffi, vice president of enrollment management
at Assumption University in Massachusetts. “There’s a lot written about student loan
debt hampering young peoples’ ability to hit other milestones, like borrowing for a
house and stuff like that. And I think that becomes more true when students go into
default and the credit is affected more than just the fact that they have debt.”59
58. High levels of student debt can significantly impact students’ academic
performance. It can be difficult for students to allocate sufficient time and energy to
their coursework when they are preoccupied with financial concerns.60 Research has
shown for nearly two decades that higher levels of student loan debt are associated
with lower academic achievement among students, as well as reduced course loads
57
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-
college/articles/see-how-student-loan-borrowing-has-changed.
58
Id.
59
Id.
60
https://www.igradfinancialwellness.com/blog/the-hidden-cost-of-student-
debt-how-universities-can-help-break-the-
cycle#:~:text=Research%20has%20shown%20for%20nearly,and%20even%20low
er%20graduation%20rates.
- 23 -
and even lower graduation rates.61 The negative effects of student debt on academic
success are more pronounced for low-income college students, as a large percentage
of low-income students ultimately drop out due to financial concerns.62
59. Moreover, research has shown that when students accumulate a high
level of debt, they tend to feel less self-assured, experience lower financial well-
being, and suffer from increased stress.63 Financial burdens among college students
can lead to anxiety and depression, as well as a decline in academic performance.64
60. According to the dean of students at Boise State University, “Due to the
fact that attending college is becoming more expensive, students are trying to save
money in other ways. This usually leads to food insecurity as well as housing
insecurity. Around 1 in every 3 college students in the U.S. lacks enough to eat as
well as stable housing. This affects students’ ability to succeed academically. Food
insecurity can lead to students attending campus events only looking for food,
reducing their food intake to make groceries last longer, skipping meals, purchasing
less nutritious food, and deciding between buying textbooks or buying food.
Housing insecurity can lead to students ‘couch surfing,’ sleeping in their cars, or
61
Id. (citing cssl.osu.edu/posts/documents/nsfws-key-findings-report.pdf).
62
Id. (citing https://research.com/universities-colleges/college-dropout-rates).
63
https://lebaron-black.byu.edu/the-mental-toll-of-student-debt-and-other-
predictors-of-college-students-financial-stress#_edn4.
64
Id.
- 24 -
even being homeless. All these factors may cause anxiety and stress which can
adversely affect mental health.”65
61. The effects of student debt carry past graduation. The Federal Reserve
Bank of New York reports that for “nine youth cohorts across all fifty states,” tuition
hikes and student debt increases “can explain between 11 and 35 percent of the
observed approximate eight-percentage-point decline in homeownership for 28-to-
30-year-olds over 2007-15.”66
V. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS
A. Defendants collectively participate in the College Board that develops a

shared financial aid methodology used by all University Defendants
62. The Board of Trustees is College Board’s governing body and is elected
by College Board member delegates.67 There are thirty-one Trustees, including
representatives of numerous Defendants, as alleged above. Its leaders are the chair,
vice chair, immediately preceding chair, and the College Board CEO.
65
https://www.boisestate.edu/deanofstudents/2021/05/05/the-increased-cost-of-
college-its-impact-on-student-basic-needs/.
66
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr820.html#:~:text=Further%2
0analysis%20demonstrates%20that%20the,for%20these%20same%20nine%20coh
orts.
67
https://about.collegeboard.org/governance/our-board.
- 25 -
63. The College Board has three national assemblies that provide guidance
on specific issues and College Board activities related to their professional areas.68
The CSS/Financial Assistance Assembly “considers issues, research, policies,
programs, and standards related to providing financial guidance and assistance to
students, including all economic aspects of postsecondary attendance, affordability,
and access.”69
64. The current chair of the CSS/Financial Assistance Assembly Council is
from Columbia University.70 As further alleged above, representatives of numerous
Defendants currently serve on that Council.
65. FASSAC is a College Board committee that designs and implements
the formula for the Institutional Methodology. Its members include “economists and
representatives of selective colleges across the country.”71 Financial aid officers who
serve on FASSAC are typically from the most influential College Board member
institutions. On information and belief, FASSAC operates under the CSS/Financial
Assistance Assembly Council.
68
https://about.collegeboard.org/governance/national-assemblies. All
allegations in this paragraph are based on this College Board web page.
69
Id.
70
https://forms.collegeboard.org/councils/s/.
71
https://issuu.com/milton_academy/docs/magazine_fallof2006, at p. 23.
- 26 -
66. Two principal methodologies are used to determine a college student’s
financial aid. The Federal Methodology is utilized by the federal government, which
uses information submitted by an applicant on FAFSA (Free Application for Federal
Student Aid) to determine eligibility for need-based federal funding, such as the Pell
Grant. Some States also use FAFSA to assess financial aid.
67. The Institutional Methodology is used by schools that require students
to submit a CSS Profile. The FAFSA is required by all schools for federal or state
aid, but approximately 250 private schools also require the CSS Profile, which has
more stringent requirements for aid eligibility, to determine whether to provide
additional aid beyond government aid.
68. The Institutional Methodology is “[d]eveloped and maintained by the
College Board in partnership with financial aid leaders.”72
69. A key difference between the two methodologies is that only the
Institutional Methodology considers noncustodial parent information, which is the
subject of this lawsuit.
B. Defendants collectively developed the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy
70. Prior to 2006, schools took various approaches to considering the assets
of parents in making financial aid determinations with numerous schools focusing
72
https://secure-
media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/professionals/institutional-
methodology.pdf.
- 27 -
on the assets of the parents who had custody of the child. Donald Saleh, a vice
president at Syracuse University, admitted that those colleges, by competing with
schools that did consider the assets of both parents, could “benefit on yield” (the
percentage of admitted students who enroll) by not pushing for financial information
from both parents,” and/or by offering “better aid packages.”73
70. University Defendants and the College Board worked to interfere with
this competitive process where colleges took differing approaches to the
consideration of noncustodial parent assets. Through concerted action, Defendants
replaced that competition with the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy. In 2006, the
College Board, with prominent involvement from the University Defendants,
developed the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy related to the consideration of financial
assets of noncustodial parents. The NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy was developed by
the College Board’s Financial Aid Standards and Services Advisory Committee. 74
Employees from various University Defendants participated in this process. The
NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy was the product of a collective effort of University
Defendants to agree on for the process for making financial aid determinations for
students.
73
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/11/01/you-cant-divorce-tuition-
bills.
74
Id.
- 28 -
71. The centerpiece of the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy was a requirement
formulated by the College Board that Noncustodial Parents (“NCPs”) provide
financial information as part of the Institutional Methodology. Once a student begins
applying for aid, the College Board sends the student an e-mail indicating that
financial information will be needed from both parents. Students were told there
were no exceptions to the requirement – even if a divorce court order was issued
concerning college expenses. Formulas are then used to generate a financial aid
offer. The student then ultimately receives an estimate for the family contribution
based on what the two parents can contribute, regardless of whether both parents do
actually contribute. The family contribution is given as a lump sum and does not
distinguish between parents.
72. The College Board took active steps to cause joint adoption of the NCP
Agreed Pricing Strategy. In 2006, the College Board sent letters to colleges urging
them to follow the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy and include consideration of the
financial assets of noncustodial parents in making financial aid determinations.
73. At least 75 schools immediately adopted the NCP Agreed Pricing
Strategy in or around 2006. For a significant minority of students (those from single-
parent families), that change essentially at least doubled their available parental
assets/income practically overnight.
- 29 -
74. Defendants who immediately adopted the new NCP methodology in
2006 include Dartmouth, Colgate, Cornell, Fordham, Georgetown, Harvard, and the
University of Chicago.
75. The College Board has explained that as to the NCP Agreed Pricing
Strategy “consensus within FASSAC was reached” on several key parts of the shared
approach, including:
 “There should be a consistent approach among institutions to the
analysis of family data when birth/adoptive parents do not live in the
same household.”
 “The definition of family should be viewed as a set of relationships
rather than a domestic unit.”
 “[T]he standard [Institutional Methodology] [Parental Contribution]
should include an assessment of the noncustodial parent’s resources
calculated in a format parallel to that of the custodial parent
contribution.”
 “The College Board is uniquely structured to serve as the facilitating
center for data collection, methodology development and operational
implementation.”
76. The College Board’s CSS Profile web page, which provides detailed
information about the NCP methodology, states: “Divorced or Separated Families.
- 30 -
Some colleges may require the CSS Profile from both the custodial and noncustodial
parent.”75
C. Since 2006, College Board and the University Defendants have

collectively used the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy
77. From 2006 onwards, the College Board has continued to implement the
NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy. The College Board currently states that “[i]f you are
a noncustodial parent, you will need to create a College Board student account using
your (the parent’s) information.”76 The College Board explains that a “noncustodial
parent is typically the parent the student did not live with most of the time during the
past year.”77 Filling out a CSS Profile requires “your most recently completed tax
returns, W-2 forms and other records of current year income, records of untaxed
income and benefits, assets, and bank statements.”
78. The CSS Profile website sets forth “Information for Parents.”78 It has a
“step-by-step guide” for “creating a separate parent account.”79 It states: “Double-
check and confirm that the student is applying to any institution that requires the
CSS Profile for noncustodial parents. Typically, only parents completing the
75
Id.
76
https://cssprofile.collegeboard.org/profile-for-parents.
77
Id.
78
https://cssprofile.collegeboard.org/help-center/what-documents-do-i-need-
complete-css-profile.
79
Id.
- 31 -
noncustodial CSS Profile should create a separate account. A list of participating
institutions is available online.”
D. The University Defendants Participate In, Facilitate, and Implement the

Conspiracy related to the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy
79. The University Defendants have agreed to adopt, promote, and
implement the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy promulgated by the College Board
through their involvement in College Board governance and their adoption of the
NCP standards. By participating in an association which collectively sets standards
related to financial aid, the University Defendants have joined the conspiracy and
played a key role in its implementation and enforcement.
80. The University Defendants participate in, implement, and facilitate the
conspiracy in at least three ways: (1) University Defendant employees attend
College Board meetings, supervise College Board operations, and participate in the
development of College Board aid methodologies and related standards; (2)
University Defendants implement the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy related to
noncustodial parent financial assets; and (3) University Defendants require students
to submit aid information related to noncustodial parents and include that
information in their determination of need-based financial aid.
81. First, as alleged above, representatives from the University Defendants
regularly attend College Board meetings and have held various leadership positions
in the organization from 2006 to the present.
- 32 -
82. Second, the University Defendants, through their representatives, were
involved in the development of the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy starting in 2006.
For example, Sally Donahue, Harvard’s Director of Financial Aid, was the chair of
FASSAC at the time that the strategy was developed. Donald Feehan, a vice
president at Syracuse, was involved in the FASSAC that developed the strategy. The
University Defendants also played a role in advocating for the adoption and
implementation of the new standards. For example, Julia Benz, a director of financial
aid at Rice, in 2006 made public statements advocating for the changes made by the
College Board.80
83. Third, the University Defendants each currently require the submission
of information related to noncustodial parent assets and include it in their
determination of need-based financial aid, consistent with the NCP Agreed Pricing
Strategy. The College Board lists all institutions that require the submission of
noncustodial parent financial information.81 Each University Defendant is listed as
requiring students to submit financial aid information for noncustodial parents. Thus,
each University Defendant currently uses the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy.
80
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/11/01/you-cant-divorce-tuition-
bills.
81
https://profile.collegeboard.org/profile/ppi/participatingInstitutions.aspx.
- 33 -
VI. EFFECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY
84. The joint use of the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy by the NCP Cartel82
causes financial harm to Plaintiff and the Class members. Consider a FAFSA school
that costs $35,000 and a Profile school that costs $75,000. A student considers both
schools, but her parents are divorced. This student’s custodial parent is unmarried,
earns a modest income and rents a home. Her noncustodial parent earns high income,
is remarried to a high earner and owns a home. The FAFSA school counts only the
income of the custodial parent. The CSS Profile counts the income of the custodial
parent, the noncustodial parent and the stepparent. FAFSA calculates the family
contribution at $10,000, while the CSS Profile calculates it at $50,000. In this
scenario, the out-of-pocket cost would be much higher for the Profile school solely
because of the noncustodial parent rules.
85. Indeed, the average net price for the forty Defendant universities is
approximately $6,200 more than for the ten non-NCP schools in the top 50 private
universities. Net price is tuition plus room and board less financial aid.
86. The mere need to provide NCP information can result in disadvantaged
students being unable to provide such information. In “The Most Onerous Form in
82
The NCP Cartel consists of the Defendants who each participated in the
implementation of the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy.
- 34 -
College Admissions,”83 The Chronicle of Higher Education explains that, among
other problems, the NCP requirements impose onerous burdens on “students who
don't live in a nuclear family. Students from single-parent homes. Students whose
parents had ugly separations. Students with a parent who’s abusive or imprisoned or
nowhere to be found.”84 This article details the extreme difficulties experienced by
those with noncustodial parents and insufficient knowledge and resources to meet
all CSS Profile requirements for students with NCPs.
VII. RELEVANT MARKET AND DEFENDANTS’ MARKET POWER
87. Defendants’ conduct is per se anticompetitive because it constitutes is
an agreement between horizontal competitors related to price. And Defendants’
conduct is also illegal under the rule of reason and “quick look” modes of analyses.
88. To the extent necessary, Plaintiffs allege a relevant market of U.S. El
Private Universities. The relevant geographic market is the United States. The
relevant product market is defined as the 50 highest ranked private national
universities according to U.S. News & World Report rankings averaged from 2008
through 2023 (the most recent year in which Class Members applied to any of
83
https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-most-onerous-form-in-college-
admissions (dated Feb. 23, 2021).
84
Id.
- 35 -
Defendants). This is the Market for Elite, Private Universities. This Market includes
the 40 Defendants, all of which require NCP financial information.85
89. The forty Defendant universities have an 84% market share of the top
fifty private schools, based on undergraduate attendance.
90. This market does not include liberal arts colleges, which offer distinct
products and are generally more like each other than like elite, private universities.
Reflecting industry recognition of these discrete classifications, both U.S. News &
World Report and the Carnegie Classifications classify national universities and
liberal arts colleges separately. Liberal arts colleges are generally regarded as having
different characteristics and services, including a smaller student body, smaller and
less competitive athletic programs, fewer graduate programs, and less or no
emphasis on research. In contrast, private, national universities tout themselves as
offering such distinct services that the liberal arts colleges do not.
91. The Market for Elite, Private Universities has a rational relation to the
interchangeability of use or cross-price elasticity of demand as to the universities in
the market. That is, within this market, sufficient cross-price elasticity of demand
exists such that a sufficient number of admitted students to two or more of these
85
The ten universities in the Top 50 private universities that do not require NCP
financial data are Gonzaga University, Loyola Marymount University, Pepperdine
University, Princeton University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Santa Clara
University, Vanderbilt University, and Yeshiva University.
- 36 -
universities would respond to a small but significant increase in the net price by one
university in the market by choosing to attend a lower-priced university in the same
market that would make the price increase unprofitable.
92. The Market for Elite, Private Universities also has a rational relation to
the cross-price elasticity of demand with respect to the schools outside the market.
That is, the cross-price elasticity between elite, private universities and elite liberal
arts colleges in the United States is low, so that a hypothetical monopolist in the
Market for Elite, Private Universities could impose a small but significant non-
transitory increase in price (“SSNIP”) without losing so many students to elite liberal
arts colleges or public universities as to render the SSNIP unprofitable.
93. Admission to elite, private liberal arts colleges is generally less
selective than admission to elite, private, national universities. According to U.S.
News & World Report, the average admission rate of the top 10 national universities
for fall 2023 was approximately 4.4%, whereas the average admission rate of the top
10 national liberal arts colleges is approximately 9%.86
86
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate. The
top ten national universities for lowest acceptance rates are CalTech (3%), Harvard
(3%), Columbia (4%), Princeton University (4%), Stanford (4%), Brown (5%), MIT
(5%), University of Chicago (5%), Yale (5%), and Dartmouth (6%). The top ten
national liberal arts colleges for lowest acceptance rates are Colby College (7%),
Pomona College (7%), Swarthmore College (7%), Barnard College (8%), Bowdoin
College (8%), Amherst College (10%), Middlebury College (10%), Williams
College (10%), Claremont McKenna College (11%), and Hamilton College (12%).
- 37 -
94. A further factor differentiating private universities and liberal arts
colleges is the yield rate—that is, the rate at which admissions offers are accepted.
Among the 50 highest ranked private universities by U.S. News & World Report,
there is a strong correlation between the institution’s rank and yield rate. Among the
national liberal arts colleges, this correlation is much weaker (if it exists at all). The
yield rate of Harvard and Stanford, for example, is greater than 80%, whereas the
yield rate for the most highly rated private liberal arts colleges—Williams, Amherst,
and Swarthmore—is usually approximately 40%.
95. The Market for Elite, Private Universities excludes public universities.
Some public universities have national rankings and selectivity comparable to elite,
private universities. But competition between public universities and elite, private
institutions is limited in the national market for students seeking financial aid,
including the Class Members. The University of California-Los Angeles (“UCLA”)
and the University of California-Berkeley (“UC Berkeley”), for example, do not
provide need-based financial assistance to out-of-state applicants. The University of
Michigan-Ann Arbor (“Michigan”) has an official policy of prioritizing financial aid
for residents. The University of Virginia (“UVA”) is required by law to matriculate
at least two-thirds of its undergraduate student body from its pool of in-state
applicants. Public, national universities generally charge a high average net price to
- 38 -
out-of-state students to cross-subsidize in-state students, a pricing policy that is
driven by laws and political pressure that private universities do not face.
96. Defendants have long acknowledged important distinctions between
private and public universities, and that elite, private universities compete within a
distinct market. In its 2001 University Plan, for example, Duke stated:
Private research universities occupy a special place in the

diverse world of American higher education because of
their distinctive missions, organization, governance, and
funding. They are deliberately intermediate in scope and
scale between the small private colleges and the large
public universities. As a group, they attract a
disproportionate number of the best faculty, are highly
selective in their admissions policies, create a residential
educational experience that promotes interaction with the
faculty and student learning outside the classroom, and
provide much of the nation’s leadership in research and
scholarship. They are resource-intensive places, typically
combining large endowments, strong philanthropic
support, and external research funding with high tuition.
These resources are powerfully additive in supporting the
teaching and research missions of these institutions and
their commitment to national and international leadership.
In our consideration of the broader context in which Duke
functions, it is important to discuss the dynamics of our
market within American higher education. The leading
private research universities have much in common,
offering similar degree programs and pursing similar lines
of research, yet the rivalry among them is often intense.
Each institution is pursuing excellence and the public
recognition that comes with it—on its own terms, seeking
to create the deepest, richest, and most diverse
environment possible for teaching, learning, and research
and for the preparation of new leaders for our society. The
leading universities compete with each other for the
- 39 -
human and financial capital they need to excel in their

broadly overlapping missions.87
97. Public universities and private universities make pricing decisions
based on very different factors, with public institutions subject to political pressures,
state laws, and dependence on expropriations from state treasuries. Compared to
elite, private universities, public universities such as UCLA, UC Berkeley, UVA,
and Michigan have different pricing models and compete for different students in
large part.
98. Defendants themselves have acknowledged that they compete within
the Market for Elite, Private Universities. Morton Schapiro, the President of
Northwestern from 2009 to 2022, is a trained economist who acknowledged this
market when he stated in 2018—carefully distinguishing between universities and
colleges—that “continuous efforts,” including a push for more federal funding, “can
accelerate improvement” and “allow NU to remain competitive against top COFHE
universities.”88 COFHE stands for the Consortium on Financing Higher Education,
a trade and lobbying group that describes itself as a “voluntary, institutionally-
supported organization of thirty-five highly selective, private liberal arts colleges
87
Building on Excellence, THE UNIVERSITY PLAN: DUKE UNIVERSITY
(Feb. 23, 2001), https://alumni.duke.edu/magazine/articles/dukes-signature-
american-higher-education.
88
Adrian Wan, Schapiro, Administrators Talk Research Efforts, Campus
Inclusion at ‘Conversations with the President’, THE DAILY NORTHWESTERN
(Apr. 12, 2018), https://dailynorthwestern.com/2018/04/12/campus/214612/.
- 40 -
and universities.” By President Schapiro’s own admission, Northwestern views itself
as competing with the universities in that group.
99. Competition in the Market for Elite, Private Universities is constrained
by extremely strong brand preferences among consumers and high barriers to entry.
Competition is also constrained by the fact that such institutions limit the supply of
available seats, which generates scarcity and enhances their prestige. Competition in
the Market for Elite, Private Universities is further constrained because applicants
cannot readily substitute one institution for another since an applicant’s choice is
limited to universities to which he or she is admitted in a highly selective process.
100. The NCP Cartel lacks any procompetitive benefits. Accordingly, if the
rule of reason were to apply, it is not necessary for Plaintiffs to demonstrate
reasonable and less restrictive alternatives are available.
101. Defendants have substantial endowments and the proven capacity to
meet the financial needs of their students without reducing their endowments (if that
were even imperative), and without colluding to artificially reduce financial aid by
means of the NCP Cartel.
102. In addition, a reasonable and less restrictive alternative is for each
member of the NCP Cartel to implement a fair financial-aid formula unilaterally,
without entering into a conspiracy that overcharges students. No procompetitive
impact that Defendants may proffer justifies the significant overcharge caused by
- 41 -
the conspiracy. If even relevant to any analysis under the rule of reason, there is no
legitimate or significant procompetitive justification in Defendants’ artificial and
unlawful reduction of financial aid for applicants with a noncustodial parent.
103. In short, Defendants’ illegal conduct has significantly injured Plaintiff
and Class Members by artificially reducing the financial aid they were offered and
received.
VIII. CONTINUING ACCRUAL AND THE DISCOVERY RULE
A. Continuous accrual
104. Defendants’ violations of the Sherman Act occurred each and every
time any Defendant engaged in conduct in furtherance of the NCP Cartel that harmed
Plaintiffs and other Class Members. In the context of Defendants’ price-fixing
conspiracy, such conduct and violations occurred upon each transaction with
Plaintiff or any Class Member at an artificially inflated net price of attendance.
105. Defendants have engaged in continuing violations of the Sherman Act,
and Plaintiff and the Class Members have paid artificially high net prices to attend
Defendants’ schools since that time and continuing through the present as a result of
the unlawful conduct alleged in this complaint.
B. The discovery rule
106. Until this year, Plaintiffs in fact did not know either (a) the extent to
which Defendants conspired or (b) that the NCP Cartel caused financial injury to
him and her and to the Class Members.

- 42 -
107. Until the last two years, moreover, a person exercising reasonable
diligence could not have discovered either (a) the extent to which Defendants
conspired, or (b) that the NCP Cartel caused financial injury to Plaintiff and the Class
Members.
IX. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
108. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action,
pursuant to the provisions of Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, on behalf of the following class (collectively, the “Class”):
All applicants for financial aid who submitted a CSS

Profile to any of the defendant colleges and universities
and who, at the time of applying, had a noncustodial
parent (as defined by the College Board) whose financial
information was used as a factor in the amount of aid
awarded based on the CSS Profile.
109. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors and
employees; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; and any
affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded from
the Class are any judicial officer(s) presiding over this action and the members of
his/her/their immediate family and judicial staff, jurors, and Plaintiffs’ counsel and
employees of their law firms. The Class is readily ascertainable because records of
the relevant transactions should exist.
110. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment is proper
because Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide basis using
- 43 -
the same evidence as would be used to prove all of those elements in individual
actions alleging the same claims.
111. This action has been brought and may be properly maintained under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the Class proposed herein.
112. Numerosity. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1): The members
of the Classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that individual joinder
of all Class members is impracticable. For purposes of this complaint, Plaintiffs
allege on information and belief that there are at least 20,000 Class members. The
precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs. Class members may be
notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice
dissemination methods, which may include U.S. Mail, electronic mail, Internet
postings, and/or published notice.
113. Commonality and Predominance: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3): This action involves common questions of law and fact, which
predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members, including
without limitation:
a) Whether Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein;
b) Whether the conduct of Defendants caused injury to the business or
property of Plaintiffs and the Class members;
- 44 -
c) Whether the competitive harm caused by the conspiracy substantially
outweighs any competitive benefits;
d) Whether Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class are entitled to,
among other things, injunctive relief, and the nature and extent of such injunctive
relief; and
e) The appropriate class-wide measures of damages.
114. Typicality: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3): Plaintiffs’ claims
are typical of the other Class members’ claims because, among other things, all Class
members were comparably injured through Defendants’ wrongful conduct.
115. Adequacy: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4): Plaintiffs are
adequate Class representatives because their interests do not conflict with the
interests of the other members of the Classes they seek to represent; Plaintiffs have
retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation; and
Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action vigorously. The Classes’ interests will be
fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.
116. Superiority: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): A class action
is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the
management of this class action. The damages or other financial detriment suffered
by Plaintiffs and the other Class members are relatively small compared to the
- 45 -
burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate their claims
against Defendants, so it would be impracticable for the members of the Classes to
individually seek redress for Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Even if Class members
could afford individual litigation, which they cannot, the court system could not.
Individualized litigation would create a potential for inconsistent or contradictory
judgments and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system.
By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and
provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive
supervision by a single court.
X. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1
Sherman Act section 1
117. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs.
118. Beginning in 2006, and continuing through the present to an extent to
be determined in discovery, Defendants entered into a continuing agreement,
understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade artificially to fix, raise, and
stabilize and reduce the amount of financial aid paid to Class Members, in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
119. In formulating and carrying out their conspiracy, Defendants have done
those things that they combined and conspired to do, including but not limited to:
- 46 -
a) agreeing upon a common method for the consideration of noncustodial
parent assets in the determination of financial aid;
b) participated in the establishment, implementation, and enforcement of
rules and standards by the College Board related to the consideration of
the assets of Noncustodial parents; and
c) fixing, increasing, and stabilizing the amount of financial aid they
offered.
120. This conspiracy has had the anticompetitive effect of increasing the
price of attendance at NCP Cartel institutions in the Elite Private University market.
121. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have been injured and will continue
to be injured in their businesses and property by paying more for attendance at
Defendants than they would have paid and will pay but for the combination and
conspiracy.
122. Defendants’ conspiracy is a per se violation of the Sherman Act. In the
alternative, is a violation of the Sherman Act under the Rule of Reason or “quick
look” analysis.
123. Defendants’ conduct has directly and proximately caused antitrust
injury to Plaintiffs and the other Class Members. The artificially inflated net price
of attendance that Plaintiffs and the other Class Members have paid to Defendants
- 47 -
flows directly from Defendants’ price fixing and is the type of damage that the
antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
124. Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to treble damages and an
injunction against Defendants, preventing the violations alleged herein.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all Class members,
respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against
Defendants, as follows:
A. Certification of the proposed Class and appointment of Plaintiffs’
counsel as Class Counsel;
B. Joint and several liability for damages, to be trebled as permitted by
law;
C. An order requiring Defendants to pay both pre- and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded;
D. A permanent injunction, under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, enjoining
Defendants from continuing to illegally conspire regarding their pricing and
financial-aid policies and practices;
E. An award of costs and attorneys’ fees; and
F. Such other or further relief as may be appropriate.
- 48 -
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial for all claims so triable.
Dated: October 7, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
By: /s/ Steve W. Berman

Steve W. Berman, ISBA #3126833
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com
Daniel J. Kurowski (IL Bar No: 6286656)

455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
(708) 628-4949
dank@hbsslaw.com
Rio S. Pierce
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
riop@hbsslaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
- 49 -

Hansen V Northwestern Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hansen V Northwestern Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hansen V Northwestern Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:24-cv-09667 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/07/24 Page 1 of 52 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Maxwell Hansen and Eileen Chang, individually No. ___________________

Northwestern University, College Board,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...................................................................... 5

III. THE PARTIES ................................................................................................ 6

IV. TUITION COSTS AND STUDENT DEBT HAVE

V. DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS ..................25

A. Defendants collectively participate in the College Board

B. Defendants collectively developed the NCP Agreed

C. Since 2006, College Board and the University

D. The University Defendants Participate In, Facilitate, and

VI. EFFECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY .............................................................34

VII. RELEVANT MARKET AND DEFENDANTS’ MARKET

VIII. CONTINUING ACCRUAL AND THE DISCOVERY RULE ....................42

A. Continuous accrual ..............................................................................42

B. The discovery rule ............................................................................... 42

IX. CLASS ALLEGATIONS ..............................................................................43

X. CLAIM FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................46

COUNT 1 SHERMAN ACT SECTION 1 ..............................................................46

REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................48

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ...............................................................................49

Plaintiffs, Maxwell Hansen and Eileen Chang, individually and on behalf of

Act against College Board, American University, Baylor University, Boston

College, Boston University, Brandeis University, Brown University, California

Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon University, Case Western Reserve

University, Trustees of Dartmouth College, Duke University, Emory University,

Fordham University, George Washington University, Georgetown University,

Harvard University, The Johns Hopkins University, Lehigh University,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Miami, New York University,

Northeastern University, Northwestern University, University of Notre Dame du

Lac, The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, William Marsh Rice

University, University of Rochester, University of Southern California, Southern

Methodist University, Stanford University, Syracuse University, Tufts University,

Tulane University, Villanova University, Wake Forest University, Washington

University in Saint Louis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Yale University

1. Paying for college is one of the landmark financial burdens millions of

University students’ tuition debts have skyrocketed. According to the Board of

by 169% in constant 2019 dollars, according to Georgetown University.3 But over

of debt to get a college degree.”5

defendant universities (the “University Defendants”) exacerbated those student debt

problems.6 In violation of Section 1 the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, Defendants

have engaged in concerted action to require a noncustodial parent of any applicant

University Defendants would have competed in offering financial aid in order to

enroll their top candidates.

3. Defendant College Board sets certain standards related to financial aid.

College Board member institutions include the University Defendants. Starting in

consideration of the income and assets of noncustodial parents when making

the University Defendants.

4. The efforts of Defendants were successful as the University Defendants

collectively agreed to consider the income and assets (hereinafter, collectively

“assets”) of noncustodial parents when making financial aid determinations.

$10 billion in nonfederal aid to thousands of students.”9 Each Defendant’s financial

noncustodial parents provide financial information as a requirement for submitting

University Defendant considers the income of the noncustodial parent in

determining how much aid to offer.

5. Defendants’ concerted action has unlawfully caused the net price of

anticompetitive effects from Defendants’ concerted activity.