A group of current and former U.S. college students is pursuing class action certification for their lawsuit against 17 prestigious universities, seeking at least 685 million dollars in damages.

The students contend that these universities’ admissions practices have favoured financially well-off applicants to attract contributions, undermining the financial aid opportunities available to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In a court filing submitted on 16 December in Chicago, the students argued that their case meets the requirements for class certification. If approved, the lawsuit could represent more than 224,000 students who claim they were deprived of adequate financial aid over a period of twenty years.

Originally filed in 2022, the lawsuit accuses the universities of violating U.S. antitrust laws by breaking a pledge to maintain “need-blind” admissions processes. The plaintiffs argue that by considering applicants’ financial situations during admissions, the universities colluded to reduce the financial aid awarded, ultimately disadvantaging students in need.

Under antitrust law, damages can be tripled, meaning the plaintiffs’ current demand of 685 million dollars could surpass 2 billion dollars if the lawsuit is successful.

To date, ten universities, including Yale, Brown, and Columbia, have reached settlements with the plaintiffs totalling 284 million dollars, while maintaining that they did not violate any laws. Meanwhile, institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania (Penn), Cornell, and Georgetown remain defendants in the ongoing litigation.

Penn has strongly refuted the claims, labelling the lawsuit “meritless.” In a statement, the university asserted, “The actual evidence in the case makes clear that Penn does not favour in admissions students whose families have made or pledged donations to Penn, whatever the amount.”

In a joint court filing, other schools dismissed the plaintiffs’ damages calculations as “fundamentally unreliable” and urged the court to exclude them from consideration.

The plaintiffs, represented by Robert Gilbert of Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, claim to have amassed significant evidence supporting their accusations of collusion among the universities. According to Gilbert, this alleged collaboration resulted in financial aid packages that were consistently lower than what would have been offered in a competitive, free-market environment.

The universities, however, argue that their actions were protected under a federal law granting immunity to schools operating “need-blind” admissions. The plaintiffs counter that the schools are not entitled to this legal shield, asserting that their admissions policies were not truly need-blind and instead factored in applicants’ financial histories.

The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences for financial aid practices and admissions policies at elite universities across the United States. As the legal battle unfolds, both sides prepare for a high-stakes confrontation that could reshape how financial aid is allocated and how universities balance their commitments to accessibility and financial sustainability.

With class-action certification now pending, the case moves closer to addressing whether these prestigious institutions acted in the best interests of their students or prioritized financial incentives at the expense of fairness and equity.