On Aug. 7, U.S. District Court for Massachusetts Judge Angel Kelley denied two motions to dismiss the ongoing federal antitrust lawsuit against Dartmouth and 31 other colleges and universities for allegedly conspiring to inflate tuition through binding early decision admissions policies.
D’Amico et al. v. Consortium on Financing Higher Education et al. was originally filed on Aug. 8, 2025, by four students — three of whom had applied through “early decision” — as a class action antitrust lawsuit against the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and its 32 former member schools — private liberal arts institutions that are dedicated to “fully” meeting students’ demonstrated financial need, according to COFHE’s website — as well as the application platform Common Application and Scoir, Inc., which manages the Coalition Application. After 50 years of operation, COFHE was formally discontinued on Dec. 31, 2025, according to its website. The website did not explain why.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants participated in an “illegal agreement to inflate tuition through the use of early decision admissions policies,” according to court documents.
On Oct. 15, 2025, the defendants filed three separate motions to dismiss the suit. Some defendant schools outside of Massachusetts filed for lack of jurisdiction, while all defendants filed for failure to state a claim. Dartmouth joined only the latter. COFHE, Common App and Scoir asked the court to dismiss them as defendants. Oral arguments for all three motions were heard May 1.
In the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the defendants alleged that the lawsuit does not meet the criteria for an antitrust lawsuit because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of an “agreement among defendants not to compete for students” and “an unreasonable restraint of trade,” according to the motion.
Additionally, the defendants alleged that because two of the four plaintiffs were admitted via early decision in 2018, the four-year statute of limitations to file an antitrust lawsuit had passed.
Kelley wrote in the memorandum and order on the defendants’ motion that the Ivy League Agreement — which states that the eight universities will “honor” the others’ early decision acceptances — is “direct evidence” of a noncompetition agreement among the five Ivies that participate in early decision and that “inferences that may be fairly drawn” suggest that the other COFHE member institutions have similar agreements. Harvard, Princeton and Yale are the only Ivy League universities that do not participate in early decision and thus are not defendants.
Furthermore, Kelley wrote, the defendant schools’ tuition increases for every semester since the plaintiffs’ acceptance triggered a “fresh limitations period.”
“Each semester where the school defendants collect tuition and fees at inflated prices, a new antitrust injury occurs,” the memorandum states.
The cost of attending Dartmouth increased by 3% from the 2025-2026 academic year to the 2026-2027 academic year — from $95,490 to $98,427, according to Dartmouth’s undergraduate admissions website. It increased 5% the year prior. Since 2015, the median annual increase in Dartmouth tuition is 3.85%, according to the Office of Institutional Research.
In the same ruling, Kelley granted the motion to dismiss the non-university defendants — COFHE, the Common Application and Scoir, Inc. — from the lawsuit. The plaintiffs “have not alleged” any clear evidence that the application platforms were involved in inflating tuition, according to the court memorandum.
“The Common App and Scoir are technology platforms that support all college application processes,” Kelley wrote in the memorandum. “There is no indication that they joined the conspiracy, nor is there any pleading that they have any financial motive to support the alleged ED conspiracy.”
The recent decision comes a month after Dartmouth students and alumni began receiving settlement payments from Henry et al. v. Brown University et al., in which Dartmouth and 16 other universities allegedly colluded to lower financial aid packages for accepted students.
Dartmouth and Rice University are represented by a legal team from Jenner & Block LLP. Attorneys from Cohen Millstein Sellers & Toll LLP and Langer Grogan & Diver P.C. represent the plaintiffs.
In an email statement to The Dartmouth, Peter Leckman, partner at Langer Grogan & Diver who is involved in the case, wrote that he was “pleased” the case is moving forward.
“We are grateful for the Court’s careful consideration of the issues,” Leckman wrote.
Daniel McCuaig, a partner at Cohen Milstein also involved in the plaintiffs case, wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth that Cohen Milstein is “ready” to take the case forward.
“Students and families deserve a fair and competitive admissions process, and we are committed to pursuing this case vigorously,” McCuaig wrote.
College spokesperson Jana Barnello wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth that the College is “not able to” comment on active litigation.
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts spokesperson Caleb Houston also declined to comment. Four of the attorneys representing Dartmouth and Rice from Jenner & Block — Ishan Bhabha, Casey Lynne-Morrison Carlson, Peter Davis and Douglas Litvack — did not respond to requests for comment.
The case has not yet been heard in court.
Sahil Gandhi ’29 is a reporter from Staten Island, N.Y., and is majoring in environmental studies and government modified with philosophy and economics. He loves word searches and falling down internet and Wikipedia rabbit holes.
