Andrew Corzo and other former undergraduate students brought a putative class action against Brown University and a group of other elite private universities, alleging that the schools violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to suppress competition on financial aid. The plaintiffs alleged that, participation in the so-called “568 Presidents’ Group,” through which the universities agreed to adopt and follow common standards for determining students’ financial need, had inflated the net price students paid to attend.
The challenged conduct traces back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, when a group of private universities collaborated to develop a “Consensus Approach” for calculating expected family contributions for financial aid. Although Congress temporarily exempted certain need-blind financial aid agreements from antitrust scrutiny through Section 568 of the Improving America’s Schools Act, that exemption required that all participating institutions admit students on a need-blind basis. The plaintiffs alleged that several universities in the 568 Presidents’ Group did not the need blind requirement and that, even after the exemption expired, the schools continued coordinating their financial aid practices in ways that restrained competition.
The universities moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove the elements of an antitrust violation, which requires a showing for (1) an unlawful agreement, (2) an unreasonable restraint of trade, and (3) an antitrust injury. The universities also argued that many claims were time-barred or protected by the statutory exemption under Section 568.
The trial court denied the motion. On the question of whether an agreement existed, the Court held that a reasonable jury could find concerted action based on evidence that the universities jointly developed common financial aid principles, expected member schools to implement them, and monitored adherence. In reaching that conclusion, the Court pointed to evidence such as internal university communications, meeting records and guidance circulated within the group, and expert analysis showing uniformity in how need was calculated across institutions. The Court emphasized that Section 1 of the Sherman Act does not require proof of an explicit price-fixing contract; collective standard-setting and coordinated practices among competitors may suffice.
The Court also concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate on the question of whether the alleged agreement unreasonably restrained trade. The Court found that the plaintiffs had produced sufficient evidence through expert economic analysis, internal university communications, and historical documents to allow a jury to find anticompetitive effects, including inflated effective tuition prices. In particular, the Court noted evidence comparing aid outcomes at participating and nonparticipating schools, expert testimony modeling how coordinated need calculations reduced price variation, and records suggesting the Consensus Approach was intended to limit competition for students.
The Court also rejected the universities’ statute-of-limitations and statutory-exemption defenses at the summary-judgment stage. It held that factual disputes existed as to when students reasonably could have discovered their alleged injury and whether the Section 568 exemption applied, given evidence that not all participating schools admitted students on a need-blind basis.
Accordingly, the Court denied summary judgment on the merits and allowed the case to proceed toward trial.
Corzo v. Brown Univ. (N.D.Ill. Jan. 12, 2026) 2026 LX 61323.
Note: Although this case involves higher education, similar antitrust challenges are simultaneously emerging at the K-12 level in California. The same day this decision came out, a federal court issued a decision Calhoun v. California Interscholastic Federation, allowing an antitrust challenge to proceed against CIF’s rules limiting high school athletes’ ability to monetize their name, image, and likeness in connection with school-affiliated activities, while dismissing other claims. Together, these cases reflect growing scrutiny of collaborative rules that affect student compensation, mobility, and pricing.