The LSAC lawsuit is a federal antitrust class action filed in August 2025 that accuses the Law School Admission Council of conspiring with its 197 member law schools to fix the fees applicants pay to apply to law school. The case, Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A judge dismissed the original complaint in April 2026 but let the plaintiff try again, and as of June 2026 the court is weighing LSAC’s second motion to dismiss.
What the Lawsuit Alleges
Linvel James Risner, a Georgia resident and law school applicant, filed the complaint on August 4, 2025, naming LSAC as the sole defendant.1CourtListener. Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Inc. It is styled as a class action on behalf of everyone who paid LSAC’s fees and alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act as well as the Clayton Act.2Bloomberg Law. Law School Admission Council Accused of Price-Fixing Conspiracy
The core claim is that LSAC operates as a vehicle through which competing law schools collectively fix what applicants pay to submit their credentials. Anyone applying to an ABA-approved law school must register for LSAC’s Credential Assembly Service at a cost of $215, then pay another $45 for every CAS report sent to a school.3LSAC. Credential Assembly Service (CAS) The complaint says those fees are set artificially high because no competing platform exists and law schools have agreed to use LSAC exclusively.4ALM. Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Complaint
Risner alleges LSAC pulls in more than $30 million a year from these mandatory fees and then funnels benefits back to member schools through free access to LSAC’s “LSAC Unite” back-end software and grant money funded by the organization’s accumulated surplus.4ALM. Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Complaint The complaint calls those benefits “kickbacks” that incentivize schools to keep the arrangement in place instead of letting applicants use cheaper alternatives.2Bloomberg Law. Law School Admission Council Accused of Price-Fixing Conspiracy
The suit draws a pointed comparison to the undergraduate Common Application, which lets individual colleges set their own application fees or waive them to attract students.5ABA Journal. LSAC Hit With Lawsuit Challenging Application Fees LSAC’s model, the complaint argues, works the opposite way. It imposes uniform, non-negotiable fees no individual school can lower or eliminate, while handing the technology platform to schools for free.
LSAC denies the allegations. A spokesperson told Bloomberg Law that the organization “strongly disagrees with the assertions in the suit” and remains committed to expanding access to legal education.2Bloomberg Law. Law School Admission Council Accused of Price-Fixing Conspiracy Risner is represented by Hilgers Graben PLLC.
Where the Case Stands Now
The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge John F. Murphy. On April 28, 2026, Judge Murphy dismissed all three counts of the original complaint, but did so without prejudice, giving Risner room to refile.6Jurist. US Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Against Law School Admission Council He called the arguments “unclear and self-contradictory” and singled out three problems: the proposed economic markets were “implausible,” the alleged antitrust harms were “nearsighted,” and the complaint didn’t adequately allege LSAC actually held monopoly power.7Legal Newsline. Judge Rejects Antitrust Case Over Law School Applications
The ruling also handed Risner something to work with. Murphy accepted that the basic structure of the relationship between LSAC and its member schools could give rise to antitrust liability under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. A group of competitors creating an entity to “do their bidding” in a way materially tied to their financial success, the judge wrote, is “concerted action” subject to Section 1, and he drew an analogy to sports league rivals.7Legal Newsline. Judge Rejects Antitrust Case Over Law School Applications If that framing survives, it would matter for any plaintiff trying to challenge a nonprofit trade association on antitrust grounds.
Risner’s team filed an amended complaint on May 12, 2026, within the two-week window the court allowed.1CourtListener. Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Inc. LSAC responded on May 29, 2026, with a second motion to dismiss, this time asking the court to dismiss with prejudice so the plaintiff cannot amend again. LSAC argues the amended complaint still fails to show competitive harm across the relevant market, still doesn’t establish monopoly power, and amounts to a complaint that LSAC “charges too much,” which isn’t an antitrust violation on its own.8MLex. Law School Admission Council Moves to Dismiss Amended US Antitrust Claims The court has not yet ruled.
The Fees at the Center of the Case
The lawsuit is easier to picture with the actual numbers in front of you. For the 2025–2026 cycle, LSAT registration costs $248, the CAS subscription is $215 (valid for five years), and each CAS report sent to a law school costs $45. An applicant who takes the LSAT once and applies to ten schools pays $248 plus $215 plus $450 in report fees, or $913 before any individual school’s own application fee. Retaking the LSAT is another $248, and ancillary charges like score preview ($45 to $85) and late test-date changes (up to $248) stack on top.9LSAC. LSAT/CAS Fees
These fees have climbed steadily. In 2011, LSAT registration went up to $160.10Blueprint Prep. The Cost of Applying to Law School Is Going Up By 2023, it had reached $222 and the CAS subscription was $200.11UVA Law Weekly. LSAC’s Change to LSAT Speaks to a Larger Issue Both have kept rising.
LSAC does run a fee waiver program for lower-income applicants. Tier 1 recipients get two free LSAT registrations, a CAS subscription, and six school reports; Tier 2 recipients get one LSAT registration and three reports.12LSAC. Fee Waiver For the class entering in 2023, 3,451 students had received fee waivers, and 66% of those recipients were students of color.13LSAC. Evolving LSAC’s Fee Waiver Program for Even Greater Impact Critics say the income thresholds leave out applicants who don’t qualify but still struggle to pay the full slate of fees, and that LSAC’s shift of free test prep from Khan Academy to its own subscription-based LawHub platform added another barrier.11UVA Law Weekly. LSAC’s Change to LSAT Speaks to a Larger Issue
Why LSAC’s Governance Matters to the Antitrust Theory
The governance angle is what turns this from an overcharging complaint into an antitrust case. LSAC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose membership is limited to law schools that require the LSAT for substantially all applicants. A majority of its board of trustees must be elected by those member schools, with ballots cast by each school’s dean or a designee, and the board chair must be a faculty or staff member at a member school.14LSAC. Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws The board manages all of LSAC’s property, business, and affairs and can amend the bylaws unilaterally.
The lawsuit’s theory depends on that structure. Because the schools that benefit from LSAC’s fee revenue also control the board that sets those fees, Risner argues, the arrangement functions as a price-fixing agreement among competitors, with LSAC as the coordinating hub. The complaint points to LSAC’s finances to show what the schools get out of it: about 90% of revenue comes from program services (which includes the LSAT and CAS fees at issue), and the organization has built up net assets of nearly $285 million as of the fiscal year ending June 2025.15ProPublica. Law School Admission Council Inc – Nonprofit Explorer
What Happens Next
Everything now turns on how Judge Murphy rules on the second motion to dismiss. If he decides the amended complaint fixes the problems he flagged in April, the case moves into discovery, where Risner’s team could demand internal LSAC documents and communications with member schools about fee-setting. If he sides with LSAC and dismisses with prejudice, the case ends unless Risner appeals.
The broader question, whether a nonprofit controlled by competing institutions can set a single fee structure for all of them without running into antitrust law, reaches past law school applications. Bloomberg Law has noted that organizations overseeing higher education credentials have become an “increasing target for private antitrust lawsuits.”2Bloomberg Law. Law School Admission Council Accused of Price-Fixing Conspiracy Murphy’s next ruling will be watched with that trend in mind.