A federal class-action lawsuit accused seventeen elite American universities — organized as the so-called "568 Presidents Group" — of violating antitrust exemptions under the Improving America's Schools Act by colluding on a shared "Consensus Methodology" for calculating financial aid, a formula the lawsuit alleges effectively fixed the cost of attendance for aid applicants across all seventeen institutions.DOCUMENTED
Twelve of the seventeen named universities — including Brown, the University of Chicago, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Emory, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Yale, Caltech, and Johns Hopkins — have now settled, with approved settlements totaling almost $320 million and the first distributions to affected students beginning in July 2026. Five schools — Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame, and Penn — did not settle, and a federal court certified a litigation class against them in June 2026, sending that portion of the case toward trial.DOCUMENTED
- The original 2022 lawsuit named 17 universities that had all been members of the "568 Presidents Group," named for the section of federal law under which member schools were permitted a limited antitrust exemption for shared aid methodologies — provided they admitted all students on a need-blind basis.
- Twelve universities have settled for a combined nearly $320 million; the first distribution of settlement funds to students was approved and initiated in July 2026.
- Current and former students from settled schools are receiving an average of roughly $2,000 each, with final amounts depending on individual circumstances and timely claims filing.
- Five schools — Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame, and Penn — did not settle. A federal court certified a litigation class against them in June 2026, and the case is proceeding toward trial rather than settlement for this subset of defendants.
- The claim deadline for the settled schools closed on 27 December 2025; the opt-out deadline for the non-settling schools' litigation class is 22 August 2026.
How a "Consensus Methodology" allegedly worked
The core legal theory of the case is that federal law permitted a narrow antitrust exemption allowing groups of universities to use a common formula for financial aid calculations specifically to prevent aid decisions from becoming a bidding war, but only on the condition that all participating schools admitted every student without regard to their ability to pay — a practice known as need-blind admission. The lawsuit's central allegation is that at least some member schools did not, in practice, maintain genuinely need-blind admissions while continuing to benefit from the shared methodology's antitrust exemption, which the plaintiffs argue voided the exemption's legal protection and left the shared formula operating as ordinary, unlawful price coordination.REVIEWED
Why settlement patterns split the defendants
The decision by twelve schools to settle while five proceeded toward contested litigation is itself informative. Settlement is often a rational choice even for a defendant with a strong legal position, given the cost, reputational exposure, and unpredictability of a jury trial — meaning the twelve settlements should not necessarily be read as an admission that those schools' individual conduct was worse than the five that are contesting the case. Conversely, the five non-settling schools choosing to proceed toward trial, with a federal court having already certified a litigation class against them, indicates a judge found sufficient common evidence across those five defendants to allow the case to proceed collectively rather than requiring separate, individualized claims.DOCUMENTED
What this means for how financial aid gets priced
This case is a rare instance of antitrust law being applied directly to the pricing of higher education access — an area where the sticker price and the actual price paid by any individual student, after aid, diverge enormously and are rarely transparent even to the students and families making enrollment decisions. A finding, through settlement or trial, that a shared methodology functioned as unlawful coordination rather than a legitimate exemption-qualifying practice would have implications well beyond the seventeen named schools, for any similar aid-coordination arrangement elsewhere in higher education.
Sources behind this report
Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.