Barbri Escapes Competitor's Antitrust Suit—Again
LLM Bar Exam alleged that Barbri colluded with law schools to push it out of the test prep market, but the U.S. Court of Appeals was not convinced.
April 25, 2019 at 01:38 PM
4 minute read
Bar exam prep behemoth Barbri Inc. did not run afoul of antitrust laws in its dealings with law schools as a competitor alleged, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday affirmed dismissal of LLM Bar Exam's $50 million antitrust suit, which claimed Barbri colluded with law schools to keep the plaintiff off campuses, dominate the LL.M. bar prep market and eventually drive it out of business.
The appellate court found in a seven-page opinion that LLM Bar Exam's allegations of Sherman Act and RICO violations failed to state a plausible claim to relief, and concluded that the lower court was correct to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims in 2017.
LLM Bar Exam's attorney, Judd Spray, said the company is disappointed by the appellate court's decision but added it expects to be vindicated in New York state court, where it has pending claims against Barbri and several law schools.
“Barbri is pleased that the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim,” said Barbri president Mike Sims on Thursday.
LLM Bar Exam was a test prep company founded in 2009 by Emanuele Tosolini, who helps run Tosolini, Lamura, Rasile & Toniutti, a self-described international law firm with offices in Italy, New York and other U.S. states. The company sued Barbri and 11 law schools in 2016, claiming they conspired to give Barbri a monopoly over bar prep for LL.M. students. Among the defendant schools were Columbia Law School; New York University School of Law; Harvard Law School; Georgetown University Law Center; Emory University School of Law; and the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. (LLM Bar Exam later voluntarily dismissed all but the New York law schools from the appeal.)
“[LLM Bar Exam] claims that Barbri and the law schools entered into agreements whereby Barbri donates money to the schools, bribes their administrators and hires their faculty to teach bar review courses; in exchange, the law schools give Barbri 'direct access … to promote and sell its products on campus directly to the JD Market and LLM Market” and “use campus facilities for lecture space,'” reads the appellate decision, summarizing the plaintiffs' allegations.
LLM Bar Exam claimed the law schools barred it from their campuses at the behest of Barbri, preventing the company for marketing its test prep services. But according to the appellate opinion, several law schools say they took action against LLM Bar Exam due to complaints from students.
“There were complaints about the quality of LBE's course materials, about LBE's refusal to provide refunds to students, about misrepresentations made by LBE's marketing representatives to students considering signing up for LBE's course, and about LBE's business tactics, including the use of binding language in its contracts and its decision to pursue litigation against students,” the opinion reads.
LLM Bar Exam, which later shut down, claimed that Barbri has more than 80 percent of the bar exam prep market and actively tried to keep the company out of the bar prep market for LL.M. students. However, the court noted that at least two other test prep companies offered products for LL.M. students at the time that LLM Bar Exam closed.
It was not the first time Barbri had been sued for antitrust violations. The company has been hit with a series of antitrust suits since the 2000s. It has settled numerous cases, among them a 2007 settlement for $49 million in a suit that said law school graduates paid more than they should have for courses because of wrongful noncompetition in the market.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Better of the Split': District Judge Weighs Circuit Divide in Considering Who Pays Decades-Old Medical Bill
K&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
3 minute readIll. Class Action Claims Cannabis Companies Sell Products with Excessive THC Content
4 minute readPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250