Could the Recent Lawsuit Against LSAC Change the Process of Law School Admission?

By Daniela Frank-Fernandez '26

---

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) is an integral component of the law school admission process. In recent days, the non-profit organization was sued in a U.S. federal court amidst very serious accusations. Whether this lawsuit will collapse under the weight of legal challenges and scrutiny or survive and serve as a catalyst for change in the way the law school admission process operates remains to be seen. This blog explores the nature of the lawsuit’s allegations against the LSAC and discusses some potential consequences to LSAC from this lawsuit.

The Law School Admission Council

LSAC has been around since 1947 and has more than 200 law schools throughout the United States, Canada, and Australia. (1) The LSAC’s self-described mission is “to advance law and justice by promoting access, equity, and fairness in law school admission and supporting the learning journey from prelaw through practice.” (2) To these ends, the organization provides an array of services, including administering the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and serving as a hub, through its Credential Assembly Service (CAS), for applicants to submit law school applications. Law schools can additionally access applicants’ LSAT scores, transcripts, letters of recommendation, and other information through CAS. Most of the services provided by LSAC are paid. There are basic fees, such as a $248 LSAT registration fee, a $215 CAS subscription fee, and a $45 fee for each CAS report that LSAC submits to law schools on behalf of applications, as well as various auxiliary fees, such as $45 to preview each LSAT score and $150 to change the LSAT test date. (3) Some of these fees charged by LSAC are central to the lawsuit that was recently filed against the organization.

The Lawsuit: Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Inc.

In the lawsuit filed on August 4, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff, Linvel James Risner, is pursuing a class action for alleged violations of federal antitrust laws. Risner describes LSAC’s actions as “goug[ing] law school applicants attempting to follow their dreams.” (4)

In what one legal commentator described as a “pay-to-play racket,” (5) the lawsuit accuses LSAC of overcharging law school applicants by fixing mandatory fees for its application system. It claims that LSAC forces applicants to pay a $215 subscription fee plus $45 for each school they apply to, regardless of the school’s own requirements. The suit argues these charges are far higher than actual costs and are unlike other similar institutions, such as the Common App for undergraduates, which is free of charge. Specifically, the suit claims that “[r]obust competition exists for secure application platforms in other sectors, confirming that LSAC and its Member Law Schools have unlawfully restrained competition and created and maintained a monopoly with LSAC’s Law School Application Platform.” (6) The plaintiff says LSAC’s practices amount to illegal price fixing and monopolization, enriching LSAC executives and law schools while unfairly burdening students. The case seeks unspecified monetary damages and an order to stop LSAC from continuing these practices.  

Antitrust Laws: A Primer

Antitrust laws in the U.S. date back to the late 1800s. Passed in 1887, the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 sought to regulate monopolistic practices in the railroad industry. (7) Today, the three main antitrust federal statutes are the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, (generally prohibiting anticompetitive agreements, monopolies, and restrictions on trade), (8) the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, (supplemented and strengthened the Sherman Act by adding additional categories of prohibited conduct, such as practices relating to mergers, and other enforcement mechanisms), (9) and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which established the Federal Trade Commission in order to regulate unfair methods of competition and deceptive advertising, amongst other prohibited practices. (10)

Price fixing is one of the most common types of antitrust violations. (11) The practice of price fixing involves competing companies conspiring to set predetermined prices for their goods and services. (12) Another form of antitrust violation exists when companies agree to control or monopolize certain markets. (13)

The lawsuit against LSAC claims two separate violations of the Sherman Act. In Counts I and II, LSAC is accused of engaging in price fixing, (14) while Count III claims that the organization has a monopoly over the law school platform application market. (15) Penalties for Sherman Act violations can be severe and include both civil and criminal consequences, and include the type of sanctions that the plaintiff is seeking in the lawsuit against LSAC. (16)

Possible Consequences from the Lawsuit

The potential financial impact of losing, or even settling, the lawsuit may be substantial. A large damages payout may send LSAC into bankruptcy and even shut it down permanently. Another drastic consequence may result in the organization being stripped of its non-profit status. However, less dramatic resolutions may emerge – requiring the organization to implement reforms for the benefit of law school applicants. Some of these reforms may be as follows: LSAC may be required to charge lower fees or even be prohibited from charging applicants mandatory platform fees altogether. Instead, the costs could be shifted to the law schools, which would then compete on how much, if anything, to pass on to applicants. This may also force law schools to do business with cheaper vendors. Proponents would applaud this approach as it could open the market to competitors (like Common App-style services or private vendors), fundamentally altering how law school applications are processed in the U.S.

The court may also impose ongoing oversight of the organization’s operations, to include independent audits, restrictions on executive compensation, or even restructuring of the organization, which could transform the process into a more cost-effective enterprise, thereby passing on considerable savings to applicants.

Since one of the major allegations in the lawsuit is that law schools require applicants to use LSAC exclusively, the court may prohibit law schools and LSAC from enforcing this exclusivity requirement, thereby allowing applicants to apply directly through law schools or other third-party platforms. 

Lastly, although not part of the lawsuit and beyond the court’s options in this case, the outcome of the lawsuit may have an unintended impact on the LSAT. In other words, since some of the criticism toward the LSAC is tied to its control over the LSAT, reasonable minds may wonder whether a successful antitrust suit could cause other courts or regulators to question whether LSAT testing should be decentralized and also subject to competition.

Conclusion 

Whether LSAC violated antitrust laws will ultimately be determined by the courts. However, the unprecedented case of Risner v. Law School Admission Council, Inc. may be poised to bring substantial changes to the business of law school admission, hopefully, for the benefit of applicants and the marketplace. Overall, this case raises broader questions about fairness, transparency, and accessibility within the field of legal education. If the courts side with the plaintiffs, it could open the door to more competition, innovation, and applicant-friendly policies in the admissions process. On the other hand, if LSAC prevails, its authority as the central gatekeeper of law school entry will remain firmly intact, but likely not without ongoing debate and calls for reform.

Endnotes

1. Law School Admission Council, “Mission & History,” accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.lsac.org/about/mission-history

2. Law School Admission Council, “About the Law School Admission Council,” accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.lsac.org/about

3. Law School Admission Council, “LSAT & CAS Fees,” accessed September 1, 2025, https://www.lsac.org/lsat/register-lsat/lsat-cas-fees

4. Risner v. Law School Admission Council Inc., No. 25-cv-4461 (E.D. Pa. filed August 4, 2025), Complaint.

5. Joe Patrice, “Law School Admission Council Accused of Running a $30 Million ‘Pay-to-Play’ Racket,” Above the Law, August 8, 2025, https://abovethelaw.com/2025/08/law-school-admission-council-accused-of-running-a-30-million-pay-to-play-racket

6. Risner v. Law School Admission Council Inc., No. 25-cv-4461 (E.D. Pa. filed August 4, 2025), Complaint.

7. National Archives, “Interstate Commerce Act (1887),” last modified September 8, 2021, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/interstate-commerce-act

8. “Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and Analysis,” But Now You Know, March 12, 2011, https://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/sherman-anti-trust-act-and-analysis/

9. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, “Clayton Antitrust Act,” LII / Legal Information Institute, July 2022, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clayton_antitrust_act

10. “Federal Trade Commission Act,” Encyclopedia.com, n.d., https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/us-history/federal-trade-commission-act

11. Lawsociety Online Editorial, “Understanding Antitrust Violations and Their Legal Implications - Law Society Online,” The Insurance Universe, February 29, 2024, https://lawsocietyonline.com/antitrust-violations/

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Risner v. Law School Admission Council Inc., No. 25-cv-4461 (E.D. Pa. filed August 4, 2025), Complaint.

15. Ibid., 34–37, ¶¶ 139–152.

16. Federal Trade Commission, “The Antitrust Laws,” Federal Trade Commission, 2024, https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws