Columbia University agreed to pay $9 million to resolve a lawsuit (PDF File) that accused the school of submitting inflated data to U.S. News & World Report. The data allegedly helped boost Columbia’s ranking to No. 2 in the country in 2022, misleading applicants and influencing enrollment decisions, according to the plaintiffs.

The case, filed in the Southern District of New York, includes nearly 22,000 current and former students. Plaintiffs claimed they were misled by the university’s statements about class sizes, instructional spending, and faculty qualifications. Among other things, Columbia reported that 83% of its classes had fewer than 20 students, a figure that was alleged to be inaccurate.

The university has denied wrongdoing. In a statement, it said it “deeply regrets deficiencies in prior reporting and has adopted new steps to improve the quality and accuracy of information available to prospective students,” and noted that it now works with an independent firm to verify information provided to prospective students.

The settlement sets aside around $6 million for students after legal fees. Columbia also announced last year that its undergraduate colleges will no longer participate in the U.S. News rankings.

What Happened?

The legal dispute gained momentum after Columbia mathematics professor Michael Thaddeus published a detailed analysis in February 2022 questioning the data behind the school’s ranking. His findings drew national attention and prompted Columbia to conduct an internal review. In the fall of that year, Columbia fell from No. 2 to No. 18 in the U.S. News rankings.

Students alleged they paid inflated tuition based on the assumption they were attending a school ranked among the best in the nation. The lawsuit alleged that Columbia used false information not just in third-party rankings but also in its own marketing materials.

The plaintiff’s legal team argued that Columbia’s actions created a “price premium” in tuition fees that would not have been possible without the manipulated data. Court filings also noted that the university used the inflated rankings in advertisements and recruitment materials. These representations, plaintiffs claimed, directly influenced their college choice.

Can Misleading Statements Lead To Student Loan Forgiveness?

The Columbia case has drawn attention to borrower defense to repayment, a federal program that allows students to have their loans forgiven if their college misled them. While this legal tool has mostly been used in cases involving for-profit schools, recent federal regulations leave open the possibility that misreporting for rankings purposes could qualify for loan forgiveness.

Under current Department of Education rules, colleges that misrepresent aspects of their academic programs or financial charges may be subject to borrower defense claims. Examples of misrepresentation include inflated class size data, inaccurate selectivity figures, or misleading statements about institutional rankings.

Borrowers who attended Columbia between 2016 and 2022 and who took out federal student loans may be eligible to file a claim. To do so, they must demonstrate that they relied on the misleading information when deciding to enroll and that they were financially harmed as a result.

It’s important to note that roughly 50% of borrower defense claims at private non-profit colleges have been approved to-date.

Borrower Defense And College Rankings

To file a borrower defense claim, affected students can apply at StudentAid.gov/borrower-defense. Supporting documentation such as brochures, screenshots, or copies of college ranking pages may strengthen an application. Borrowers should also include any communications or promotional materials from Columbia that reference its U.S. News ranking during the specific years in question.

The Columbia case underscores broader questions about how much weight students place on rankings and the role universities play in shaping those perceptions. Columbia is not alone: in recent years, several institutions have faced scrutiny over data submitted to rankings publishers. Some, including the University of Southern California and Temple University, have faced lawsuits or investigations for similar issues.

Harvard, Yale, and other institutions have also stopped submitting data to U.S. News for certain graduate programs, arguing that the rankings can distort educational values and mislead students about costs and outcomes.

In Columbia’s case, the students’ legal team pointed to statements from the university itself, which acknowledged that rankings had an “outsized influence” on applicants.

What’s Next For Students?

If the Columbia settlement receives final approval, students who were enrolled during the six-year period may receive a share of the fund. Exact payment amounts will depend on how many claims are filed and how the court allocates distribution.

Meanwhile, Columbia’s move to stop participating in undergraduate rankings reflects a broader trend among universities reevaluating their role in these systems. While U.S. News has continued to revise its methodology, some critics argue that the focus on numerical indicators oversimplifies the value of higher education.

For us, we believe that financial ROI should be the primary factor families consider when deciding on a college.

The Columbia case could also set a precedent for future borrower defense cases against non-profit universities. While most approved claims so far have involved outright fraud by for-profit institutions, this lawsuit highlights how traditional colleges might also face accountability when they present misleading data that affects financial decisions.

Don’t Miss These Other Stories: