Above the Law reports that LSAC—administrator of the LSAT and the centralized application platform—is being sued for allegedly running an anticompetitive, “pay-to-play” operation that generates tens of millions annually from applicants. Plaintiffs claim LSAC’s arrangements with member law schools suppress competing platforms and keep prices high.
The Lawsuit & Where It Was Filed
According to Bloomberg Law, the proposed class action Risner v. Law School Admission Council (E.D. Pa.) alleges price-fixing and market control through LSAC’s application pipeline, seeking relief under the Sherman and Clayton Acts. LSAC says it strongly disagrees with the allegations.
Parallel Case In Med School Admissions
Reuters notes a parallel suit against the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), arguing similar monopoly control over application services. Together, the cases challenge whether nonprofit gatekeepers can limit competition and impose supracompetitive fees.
Why It Matters For Applicants (And Law Schools)
- Access & Cost: A successful challenge could force schools to accept applications via alternative platforms or school portals, potentially lowering costs.
- Antitrust Scrutiny of Nonprofits: The litigation tests how antitrust law applies to nonprofit, education-sector monopolies.
- Policy Ripples: A ruling could reshape how credentials and application data are bundled and priced—especially LSAC’s Credential Assembly Service (CAS), which centralizes transcripts, recommendations, and scores.
Background: CAS & Fees
For context on how the system works, see LSAC’s own overview of CAS, which describes the subscription and per-school report fees that applicants pay.
