Most perceive the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) merely as the creators of the LSAT, a critical step in law school admission that involves puzzling logic games and intricate problem-solving. However, a recent antitrust class action filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania paints a different picture, alleging that LSAC is operating a monopolistic "pay-to-play" scheme, extracting excessive fees from law school applicants.

Traditionally, prospective law students managed their own applications after taking the LSAT. Nowadays, LSAC not only administers the LSAT but also acts as a centralized application service, charging fees that the lawsuit claims are exorbitantly high due to lack of competition. In 2025, over 60,000 aspiring law students submitted more than 500,000 applications, each paying up to $105 per application to their chosen schools. Before these school fees, each applicant must pay LSAC a $215 subscription fee and a $45 per report fee, totaling over $600 for applicants applying to 10 schools.

This cost is starkly contrasted with undergraduate admission systems, which charge schools a flat annual fee and a modest per-application rate, leaving applicants to only pay the school's application fee. Similarly, business schools, without a centralized clearinghouse, manage to keep application costs lower, with fees rarely exceeding $250.

The lawsuit highlights LSAC's financial reports, which reveal that it collected $93 million in fees from its Credential Assembly Service over three years. With $250 million in net assets and executive salaries that rival those of top hedge funds, questions arise about the justification for such high fees.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that LSAC has conspired with law schools to fix the price of application fees, benefiting from what the lawsuit describes as "supracompetitive profits." These profits have purportedly been used not only to enrich LSAC's executives but also to provide kickbacks to member law schools, which receive LSAC’s “Unite” admissions platform for free.

This arrangement, the lawsuit argues, disincentivizes law schools from seeking cheaper or more competitive application processing alternatives, effectively maintaining the status quo where LSAC monopolizes the market.

The plaintiffs in the case argue that this system unfairly burdens applicants, turning the dream of law school into an expensive ordeal that benefits the gatekeepers more than the gate-entered. As this legal battle unfolds, it challenges the integrity of law school admissions, questioning whether fairness and accessibility remain core tenets of legal education.