Online grads sue USC

[HogwartsSchool]

I found and read the filed complaint with the court. The majority of this group keeps discussing the $60K to $100K online tuition price tag. Question. Would it be fraud if it was only $10K to $15K for the same experience at USC? The online tuition price tag isn't a main component of the lawsuit, and I don't understand why everyone keeps discussing it. The lawsuit is about false rankings and paying for USC education and not receiving it, instead it was outsourced to 2U.
Here is the court filing. https://defendstudents.org/news/body/202...plaint.pdf

Did you read this?

"10. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and the class of similarly situated 
USC Rossier students who paid tuition that they would not have otherwise paid (or would have paid 
substantially less), had they not been drawn in by USC Rossier’s fraudulently obtained US News 
ranking. Defendants’ misleading, years-long scheme to boost USC Rossier’s US News ranking and 
related efforts to disseminate that ranking via a long-term false advertising campaign, violated 
California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500), California’s Unfair 
Competition Law (“UCL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), and California’s Consumer Legal 
Remedies Act (the “CLRA”) (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.)."

---

Yes, I read and that makes my point. I will repeat my prior post.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton...474a2755e9

Quote from the article "But the real news from this legal challenge is the inherent implication that USC’s online program is not as good as its in-person one. If it was the same or better, where’s the basis for the legal complaint? But the suit makes it clear that what USC and 2U were selling and delivering were not – are not – the same. "

How is tuition and online degree ranking methodology irrelevant to the lawsuit when those are mentioned in the lawsuit? Even if USC did not misreport data, students were expecting something that was not promised.

1. I never said tuition isn't relevant, I said people shouldn't focus on the amount of the tuition. If there is fraud, whether it's 10K or 100K, it's still fraud. That's my point. 
2. I never said ranking methodology isn't relevant. The lawsuit shows a pattern of manipulating the U.S. News online school rankings data with USC and 2U, false advertising, etc. 
3. I agree, students were promised X and didn't receive it, I have said that many times already.