And also that these practices enable the colleges to charge higher tuition for all students.
1 Like
Why would they have to prove No. 3?
The plaintiffs have to prove damages. I think they would have to show what effect, if any, binding ED agreements have on what they pay to attend the defendant schools. IMO, this can be done by showing a disparity in pricing in either the ED or RD stage.
I think any theory of the case more esoteric than that risks falling of its own weight.
There is another thread on the case itself, and a few knowledgeable posters have explained more about the claims - without agreeing with them. Worthwhile reading.