IN RE: COLUMBIA COLLEGE RANKINGS ACTION

Background

This putative class action was brought under the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiffs Ravi Campbell and Students A-D alleged that Columbia, sued as The Board of Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, provided inaccurate information to U.S. News & World Report for its “Best National Universities” rankings. They asserted claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs alleged that Columbia’s rankings allowed it to charge higher tuition. The court focused on allegations that Columbia reported inaccurate class-size information from the 2011-12 through 2021-22 rankings. Campbell attended Columbia from 2014 through 2018; Student A from 2019 through 2021; Student B from 2014 through 2020; Student C from 2016 through 2020; and Student D from 2011 through 2015. Students A, C, and D were alleged to have attended as graduate students.

Columbia moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Columbia argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the General Business Law claims failed or were untimely, and that the contract and unjust-enrichment claims were legally deficient.

Standing

The court held that Campbell and Student B adequately alleged an injury for purposes of standing. Their theory was that Columbia’s allegedly inaccurate rankings caused them to pay a tuition premium, and that they would not have sought admission or paid the same amounts had they known about the alleged inaccuracies. The court concluded that this theory was sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage, even though the plaintiffs did not allege that they personally saw Columbia advertisements using the rankings.

The court also held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that inaccurate class-size data affected Columbia’s rankings between 2011-12 and 2021-22. It rejected Columbia’s argument that the plaintiffs could not have been influenced by the 2021-22 rankings because they enrolled earlier, reasoning that the complaint plausibly alleged inaccurate class-size reporting throughout the relevant period.

The court dismissed the claims of Students A, C, and D for lack of standing. The rankings at issue concerned undergraduate programs, while those plaintiffs were alleged to have paid tuition as graduate students. The court concluded that their alleged injuries were not traceable to the undergraduate ranking data. Campbell and Student B demonstrated standing.

New York General Business Law Claims

The plaintiffs claimed that Columbia violated General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 through deceptive conduct and false advertising. The court concluded that Campbell’s claims were time-barred. Under New York law, these claims generally must be filed within three years after the plaintiff is injured. Campbell’s last tuition payment was in 2018, but he filed his complaint in 2022.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ equitable-tolling argument. It concluded that the alleged misrepresentations to U.S. News formed the basis of both the claims and the proposed tolling theory, and that the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded a separate act of concealment or facts showing that the alleged misconduct could not reasonably have been detected earlier.

The court did not dismiss Student B’s General Business Law claims at this stage. It held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged causation under a “price premium” theory: Columbia’s alleged misleading campaign could have increased tuition for students whether or not each student personally saw or relied on the rankings. The court also held that the alleged damages were sufficiently pleaded, even though calculating them might later be difficult.

Breach of Contract

The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim. Under New York law, a student must identify a specifically designated and discrete promise made by the university. The complaint alleged that Columbia misreported data to U.S. News, but it did not identify a specific contractual promise to the plaintiffs that Columbia breached. The court therefore dismissed the contract claim as pleaded.

The court granted Campbell and Student B leave to amend their breach-of-contract claim. It did not find amendment impossible, although it stated that it appeared unlikely that the plaintiffs could plead a contract claim that would survive another motion to dismiss.

Unjust Enrichment

The court granted Columbia’s motion to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim. The claim relied on the same alleged misrepresentations and sought the same tuition-related damages as the General Business Law claims. Because it was duplicative, the court denied leave to amend that claim.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe concluded that Columbia’s motion to dismiss was granted as to all of the plaintiffs’ claims except Student B’s claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. The court granted leave to amend only Campbell and Student B’s breach-of-contract claim. The opinion did not add a prejudice designation to the dismissals.