The AAMC lawsuit currently drawing attention is Durbal v. Association of American Medical Colleges, a proposed class action filed in August 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit accuses the Association of American Medical Colleges of running an illegal monopoly over medical school applications through its AMCAS platform and overcharging tens of thousands of applicants each year. As of mid-2026, the AAMC’s motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is awaiting a ruling from Judge Amir H. Ali.1Justia. Durbal v Association of American Medical Colleges
What the Complaint Alleges
The named plaintiff, medical student Nirvana Durbal, filed the complaint on August 4, 2025. It claims the AAMC violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by conspiring with its member medical schools to fix application fees and shut out competing application platforms.2Reuters. Class Action Lawsuits Challenge Law, Medical School Application Fees
According to the complaint, the AAMC “illegally maintains a monopoly in the market for medical school application platforms” and uses that position to collect more than $50 million annually in inflated fees from applicants.3The Center Square. Class Action Lawsuit Accuses AAMC of Monopolizing Medical School Applications Durbal alleges the AAMC then funnels a portion of that revenue back to its roughly 160 accredited member schools as “kickbacks” that keep them loyal to AMCAS and discourage them from accepting applications through rival services.4Bloomberg Law. Medical College Association Accused of Application Price Fixing
The suit seeks class certification on behalf of everyone who has paid AMCAS fees, along with injunctive relief, treble damages, and other remedies.3The Center Square. Class Action Lawsuit Accuses AAMC of Monopolizing Medical School Applications Durbal is represented by attorneys William Burgess, Michael Burns, and Peter McCall of Hilgers Graben, who said in a statement reported by Reuters that they “looked forward to pursuing their claims.”2Reuters. Class Action Lawsuits Challenge Law, Medical School Application Fees
The AAMC said it “will vigorously defend this lawsuit.”2Reuters. Class Action Lawsuits Challenge Law, Medical School Application Fees
The AMCAS Fees at the Center of the Case
About 52,000 people apply to medical school through AMCAS each year, and the AAMC operates the service for 176 medical schools in the United States and Canada, most of which require it as their primary application method.5AAMC. AAMC Homepage6AAMC. Apply to Medical School With the AMCAS Program
The fees have climbed over time. For the 2027 application cycle, AMCAS charges $180 for the first school and $48 for each additional school.7AAMC. The Cost of Applying to Medical School In 2026, the equivalent figures were $175 and $47.8AAMC. You Apply In 2023, they were $170 and $43.9American Medical Association. CME Report on Modifying Financial Assistance A 2023 study calculated the required cost to apply to 20 medical schools at $1,725, up from $1,455 in 2019.10National Library of Medicine. The Cost of Applying to Medical School
The AAMC runs a Fee Assistance Program that waives AMCAS fees for qualifying low-income applicants and covers up to 20 school designations, a benefit valued at $1,092.8AAMC. You Apply The organization says it grants $31 million per year in reduced or waived fees.5AAMC. AAMC Homepage
One boundary worth noting: the lawsuit targets the AMCAS platform used for allopathic (M.D.) programs. Osteopathic (D.O.) applicants use a separate system called AACOMAS, and public Texas medical schools use TMDSAS.11AACOM. Apply to Medical School Neither is interchangeable with AMCAS, which is central to the suit’s theory that the AAMC controls the only gateway for most aspiring M.D. students.
Where the Case Stands
The AAMC filed its motion to dismiss in October 2025. Durbal filed her opposition brief on November 18, 2025, and the AAMC filed its reply on December 22, 2025.12PACER Monitor. Durbal v Association of American Medical Colleges The court has not yet ruled.
In May 2026, Judge Ali granted the AAMC leave to file a notice of supplemental authority, which typically flags relevant rulings from other cases. The deadline for Durbal to move for class certification has been stayed until the motion to dismiss is decided.12PACER Monitor. Durbal v Association of American Medical Colleges
The LSAC Case Is a Preview
On the same day Durbal filed her complaint, Hilgers Graben filed a nearly identical lawsuit against the Law School Admission Council on behalf of plaintiff Linvel Risner in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That case alleged LSAC conspired with 197 member law schools to fix application fees, collecting more than $30 million annually, or roughly $500 per applicant.2Reuters. Class Action Lawsuits Challenge Law, Medical School Application Fees
On April 28, 2026, Judge John Murphy dismissed all three counts without prejudice, calling the allegations “implausible” and the complaint “unclear and self-contradictory.” The court found that although the plaintiff had standing and had alleged concerted action, he failed to adequately define the relevant antitrust markets and did not allege harm on both sides of the two-sided platform, meaning harm to both applicants and law schools.13Jurist. US Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Against Law School Admission Council Risner filed an amended complaint on May 12, 2026, and LSAC filed a new motion to dismiss on May 29, 2026. That case remains active.14CourtListener. Risner v Law School Admission Council Inc
Because the two lawsuits share counsel and legal theory, the LSAC ruling matters here. The AAMC’s May 2026 notice of supplemental authority in the Durbal case likely cited Judge Murphy’s reasoning. Whether the D.C. court finds the same defects in Durbal’s complaint is the immediate question.
Earlier Antitrust History With the AAMC
This is not the first antitrust suit the AAMC has faced. In 2002, a class of medical residents led by Paul Jung, MD, sued the AAMC and other organizations in the same D.C. federal court, alleging that the National Residency Matching Program suppressed physician wages and eliminated residents’ ability to negotiate compensation.15Journal of Ethics, American Medical Association. Challenging the Medical Residency Matching System Through Antitrust Litigation16CaseMine. Jung v Association of American Medical Colleges
The Jung case did not end on the merits. In 2004, the AAMC and the American Hospital Association lobbied Congress to add Section 207 to the Pension Funding Equity Act, which declared that participation in residency matching programs “shall not be unlawful under the antitrust laws” and barred evidence of matching-program conduct in federal antitrust cases. The court then dismissed Jung.15Journal of Ethics, American Medical Association. Challenging the Medical Residency Matching System Through Antitrust Litigation17Washington University Open Scholarship. Jung v Association of American Medical Colleges No comparable statutory exemption exists for the application-fee market at issue in Durbal’s case, so the AAMC will have to defend on the antitrust merits.
What Happens Next
The near-term milestone is Judge Ali’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. If the court follows the reasoning from the LSAC case and finds the complaint insufficient, Durbal’s attorneys would likely have a chance to amend and refile, as Risner did in Pennsylvania. If the complaint survives, the case moves toward class certification and discovery, which would open up a detailed look at how AMCAS fees are set and where the revenue goes. Until the court rules, class certification is on hold and no substantive antitrust findings have been made.