On Oct. 7, Brandeis University was named in a class action lawsuit, accused of conspiring with 39 other top universities and the College Board in price-fixing. The suit was filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and alleges the defendants’ “concerted action” has caused the price of tuition to increase for students with non-custodial parents — a parent who does not have primary custody of their child after a divorce or separation.

The plaintiffs, Maxwell Hansen, a current student at Boston University and Eileen Chang, an alumnus of Cornell University, assert that since 2006, the College Board — responsible for developing and administering standardized procedures related to college admissions — collaborated with the 40 university defendants to implement the Non-Custodial Parent Agreed Pricing Strategy. According to the plaintiffs, this “collectively agreed” method to assess how much financial aid a student qualified for — based on financial information that includes noncustodial parents — increases tuition costs for students from divorced or separated parents.

The NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy differs from the Federal Methodology, which is used by the federal government. This method uses information submitted by applicants on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and only considers a student's income and assets, as well as the household size, income and assets of the custodial parent. However, the College Scholarship Service Profile, administered by the College Board, has “more stringent requirements” that lead to less favorable financial packages for students with divorced or separated parents, the lawsuit says. 

The filing states that the consideration of non-custodial parents resulted in students having to pay about $6,200 more for college compared to students whose schools used just the FAFSA — adding to the increasing burden of tuition and student debt. 

“Paying for college is one of the landmark financial burdens millions of students and parents face,” the lawsuit states. “The Defendants’ conduct at issue here has only made matters worse.”

The plaintiffs claim the NCP Agreed Pricing Strategy violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits practices that restrain trade and competition in the marketplace. In part, the act states: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other-wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal.” The College Board, along with the 40 universities, established an “agreement between horizontal competitors,” dampening the “competitive process where colleges took differing approaches to the consideration of noncustodial parent assets,” according to the court filings.  

“Absent this agreement the University Defendants would have competed in offering financial aid in order to enroll their top candidates,” the lawsuit states. 

Hasen, one of the plaintiffs and a current BU student, was required to submit a CSS Profile, according to the lawsuit, and received $15,000 a year in financial aid from American University. He attended American University from the fall of 2021 through the fall of 2023, before transferring to BU. He received $20,000 a year in financial aid from BU, despite receiving no financial support from his non-custodial parent. According to BU’s website, tuition is approximately $90,207.

Chang, the other named plaintiff, graduated from Cornell University in 2021. She also submitted a CSS Profile. The lawsuit adds that Chang’s non-custodial parent is on disability and has an income higher than her custodial parent. She received need-based federal and non-federal financial aid. However, since Chang’s non-custodial parent was on disability and could not contribute, she requested Cornell to not consider that parent’s financial information. The request was denied, the lawsuit states, and “she was told that non-custodial parents are expected to help pay tuition.” During her time at Cornell, the tuition was around $70,000 a year, according to the lawsuit. 

The lawsuit asserts that, in addition to the “antitrust injury,” the extra burden may result in decreased academic performance. “It can be difficult for students to allocate sufficient time and energy to their coursework when they are preoccupied with financial concerns,” the filing explains. The suit also points out that high levels of debt can diminish self-confidence, increase stress and negatively impact financial well-being. As college costs rise, students are often seeking ways to save money, which frequently leads them to cut back on essentials like food and housing.

The 49-page complaint seeks a jury trial for all claims, $5 million in monetary damages and an order to stop the alleged price-fixing conspiracy.  

“The university is not commenting on this pending litigation,” a spokesperson for the University said when The Justice requested comment.

Hasen and Chang are represented by attorneys from Hagens Berman Socol Shapiro LLP. On Oct. 18, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, who was assigned to the case, requested for the case to be reassigned, citing “Self and family members are involved with one or more of the university defendants.” 

Other top universities named as defendants in the complaint include Brown University, Columbia University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University and Stanford University.