USC Class Action Lawsuits, Key Cases, Outcomes, and Legal Impact
The University of Southern California faces multiple class action lawsuits involving alleged sexual abuse, COVID-19 tuition disputes, ranking manipulation, and misleading online program marketing. The most significant case resulted in a $215 million settlement for nearly 18,000 women who received care from former gynecologist George Tyndall. Additional cases include a $10 million COVID-19 tuition settlement approved in October 2025, ongoing litigation over falsified U.S. News rankings, and claims that USC misrepresented its online Master of Social Work program.
George Tyndall Sexual Abuse Settlement: $215 Million
USC settled federal class action claims for $215 million after allegations that gynecologist George Tyndall sexually abused patients at the student health center from 1989 to 2016. Judge Steven V. Wilson granted final approval on February 19, 2020.
Claims Filed
Plaintiffs alleged Tyndall used his position at USC’s Student Health Center to sexually abuse, harass, and molest female students during gynecological examinations over 27 years. The lawsuit claimed USC knew about complaints against Tyndall but failed to take action, allowing the abuse to continue.
Legal Basis
Claims included gender violence, sexual abuse, negligence, and institutional failure to protect students. The case invoked Title IX protections and state law claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Settlement Terms
The settlement created a three-tier system: Tier 1 provided automatic payments to all class members who saw Tyndall. Tiers 2 and 3 offered additional compensation based on the severity of abuse documented through claims reviewed by a court-appointed Special Master’s Panel. Over 16,000 claimants received payments.
USC agreed to implement new procedures for identifying, preventing, and reporting sexual and racial misconduct. The settlement avoided a lengthy trial while compensating survivors and mandating institutional reforms.
COVID-19 Tuition Refund Settlement: $10 Million
USC agreed to pay $10 million to settle claims that it failed to refund tuition and fees after transitioning to remote learning during spring 2020. U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee granted preliminary approval on October 22, 2025.
Claims Filed
Students who paid spring 2020 tuition sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of California Business & Professional Code. Plaintiffs argued they paid for in-person instruction, campus facilities, and services they did not receive when USC moved classes online in March 2020.
Lead plaintiff Latisha Watson, an MSW student, took out over $20,000 in loans for spring 2020. She claimed the online experience differed dramatically from what USC promised and charged approximately $32,335 per semester—significantly higher than online-only programs.
Defense Arguments
USC denied wrongdoing, stating government orders mandated the transition to remote learning. The university maintained that faculty provided quality instruction regardless of format and that students continued earning USC degree credits. USC noted it disclosed the possibility of changes to course offerings.
Outcome
After class certification was granted in September 2023, both parties agreed to settle to avoid continued litigation costs and uncertainty. The settlement fund will be distributed equally among eligible class members after deducting attorneys’ fees, service awards, and administrative costs.
The settlement administrator will contact eligible students automatically using USC records. Class members can update addresses or elect payment via Venmo or PayPal by February 20, 2026. Final distributions will occur approximately 70 days after the court grants final approval and resolves any appeals.
U.S. News Ranking Manipulation Lawsuit
Former USC Rossier School of Education students filed a class action in December 2022 alleging USC and online program partner 2U submitted false data to U.S. News & World Report to inflate rankings and lure students into expensive online programs.
Claims Filed
Plaintiffs Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski, and Mariah Cummings claim USC cherry-picked admissions data from a small group of in-person doctoral students while excluding online program data. This caused USC Rossier to vault from #38 in 2008 to #10 by 2018.
The lawsuit alleges USC never submitted selectivity data from online programs because those numbers would have produced poor rankings. Instead, USC used inflated in-person rankings to market online programs, where 2U received 60% of tuition revenue—approximately $116,000 per online doctorate student.
An internal investigation by law firm Jones Day revealed USC submitted erroneous data for years. USC withdrew Rossier from U.S. News rankings in March 2022 after admitting “a history of inaccuracies.”
Legal Framework
Claims include fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of California’s False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs argue federal regulations prohibit compensating recruiters based on enrollment, yet USC’s profit-sharing arrangement with 2U created exactly that incentive structure.
Current Status
A federal judge granted class certification, allowing the case to proceed on behalf of over 2,000 students enrolled in USC Rossier online programs between April 2009 and April 2022. The court denied USC’s motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in November 2024. Class certification briefing concluded in January 2025, and the case is moving toward trial.
Plaintiffs seek restitution, actual damages, and punitive damages for students who paid premium tuition based on fraudulent rankings.
Online MSW Program Misrepresentation Lawsuit
USC faces ongoing litigation over claims it misrepresented its online Master of Social Work program as identical to its in-person program while outsourcing substantial operations to 2U.
Claims Filed
Plaintiffs Stephanie Luna, Sandra Campos, and Deonte Simpkins filed suit in May 2023, alleging USC falsely advertised that its online MSW program offered the same faculty, curriculum, clinical placements, and career services as the prestigious in-person program. In reality, the online program featured different instructors, pre-recorded lectures, and outsourced placement services.
The complaint alleges USC charged identical tuition—over $100,000—for both programs despite the online version’s inferior quality. USC allegedly concealed that 2U employees handled recruitment, advising, and clinical placements while using USC email addresses.
Targeted Recruitment Claims
The lawsuit includes discrimination claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs allege USC and 2U specifically targeted people of color and veterans with aggressive recruitment tactics, using graphics showing “conversion probability” based on race, veteran status, and socioeconomic factors.
Legal Proceedings
On April 2, 2024, the Los Angeles Superior Court denied USC’s motion to dismiss most claims, allowing the misrepresentation case to proceed to discovery. The court initially dismissed the Unruh Act discrimination claim but granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
On September 17, 2024, the court allowed the discrimination claim to move forward after plaintiffs provided additional facts. The case is now in discovery, with both sides exchanging documents and depositions.
USC subsequently ended its partnership with 2U, which filed for bankruptcy in 2024.
Class Definition
The putative class includes all California citizens enrolled in USC’s online MSW program from four years before filing through final judgment. Plaintiffs seek refunds for amounts overcharged and injunctive relief to stop USC’s alleged deceptive practices.
ERISA Retirement Plan Settlement: $13.05 Million
USC paid $13.05 million in February 2022 to settle claims that two university retirement plans violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) through excessive fees and duplicated services.
Nine current and former plan participants alleged plan fiduciaries breached their duties by allowing high investment fees and unnecessary administrative costs. The lawsuit filed in August 2016 claimed USC failed to monitor plan expenses and negotiate lower fees despite managing significant retirement assets.
Settlement terms included non-monetary provisions requiring plan improvements. The settlement required court approval and ended litigation just before a scheduled trial.
Alumni Association Membership Settlement
USC settled claims that it improperly revoked or denied Alumni Association memberships to graduate certificate program completers. The settlement benefits individuals who completed USC graduate certificate programs between January 2000 and November 2023 but did not receive alumni memberships.
Class members received $50 e-coupons for USC bookstores and automatic membership reinstatement by February 20, 2024. Final approval occurred on July 16, 2024. USC did not admit wrongdoing.
Legal Framework for Educational Malpractice Claims
USC’s multiple class actions demonstrate key legal theories available to students challenging university conduct:
Breach of Contract
Students argue tuition payments create contractual obligations for universities to provide advertised services, instruction quality, and facilities access. COVID-19 cases nationwide tested whether universities must refund tuition when circumstances force program changes.
Consumer Protection Laws
California’s False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law prohibit misleading business practices. These statutes allow students to challenge deceptive marketing about program quality, rankings, and outcomes.
Title IX and Institutional Liability
Universities face liability when they know about sexual misconduct but fail to take corrective action. The Tyndall case illustrates how institutions can be held accountable for enabling abuse through inadequate oversight and complaint response systems.
ERISA Fiduciary Duties
Plan administrators must act solely in participants’ interests, monitoring fees and investment options. The retirement plan settlement reflects growing scrutiny of university retirement programs following similar cases against Yale, Northwestern, and MIT.
Implications for Higher Education Litigation
USC’s cases reveal litigation trends affecting universities nationwide:
Ranking Manipulation Scrutiny
Following scandals at USC, Columbia, and Temple, universities face increased pressure to accurately report data to U.S. News and other ranking organizations. Students now sue claiming rankings fraud induced enrollment and justified premium tuition.
Online Program Quality Claims
As universities partner with online program managers, students challenge representations about program equivalence, faculty credentials, and resource access. Courts increasingly recognize differences between online and in-person offerings as material to enrollment decisions.
COVID-19 Refund Litigation
Hundreds of universities faced tuition refund lawsuits after pandemic closures. Settlement amounts vary widely, with USC’s $10 million settlement among the larger resolutions. Most courts found students stated viable breach of contract claims, leading universities to settle rather than face trials.
Sexual Misconduct Institutional Liability
Universities face massive liability when failing to address sexual misconduct reports. The Tyndall settlement’s $215 million price tag demonstrates the financial consequences of institutional negligence in protecting students.
What These Cases Mean for Students
Verification Before Enrollment
Students should independently verify ranking data, faculty credentials, and program resources rather than relying solely on university marketing. Request specific information about online versus in-person program differences.
Documentation of Promises
Preserve admissions materials, program descriptions, and communications about services provided. Documentation proves critical in breach of contract claims when universities fail to deliver promised resources.
Understanding Settlement Processes
Class action settlements often provide modest individual payments while requiring no action from class members. Students automatically included in settlements should monitor deadlines for opting out, objecting, or updating contact information.
Reporting Misconduct
Students who experience discrimination, harassment, or safety concerns should document incidents and report through multiple channels. Contemporaneous complaints create records establishing institutional knowledge if litigation later occurs.
Current Status Summary
Tyndall Settlement: Fully approved and distributed. Tier 1 payments completed in 2020. Tier 2 and 3 evaluations processed through the Special Master’s Panel.
COVID-19 Settlement: Preliminary approval granted October 2025. Final approval pending. Payment distribution expected 70 days after final approval and appeals resolution.
Ranking Manipulation: Class certified. Discovery ongoing. Expert witness motions denied November 2024. Case proceeding toward trial.
Online MSW Misrepresentation: Active litigation in discovery phase. Discrimination claims allowed to proceed September 2024. No trial date set.
ERISA Settlement: Finalized in 2022 with court approval.
Alumni Association Settlement: Final approval July 2024. Benefits distributed to eligible class members.
Frequently Asked Questions
Am I included in the USC COVID-19 settlement?
If you paid or owed tuition, fees, or costs to USC for spring 2020, you are automatically included unless you opt out. The settlement administrator will contact you using USC records. Update your address by February 20, 2026, to ensure you receive payment.
How much will I receive from the COVID-19 settlement?
The $10 million fund will be divided equally among eligible class members after deducting attorneys’ fees, service awards, and administrative costs. Individual amounts depend on the total number of class members but will be distributed pro rata.
Can I still join the ranking manipulation lawsuit?
If you enrolled in USC Rossier online graduate programs between April 2009 and April 2022, you are automatically part of the certified class. No action is required to join. Contact class counsel if you have questions about your eligibility.
What if I attended the online MSW program?
The online MSW lawsuit is pending and has not been certified as a class action. If you are a current or former California online MSW student, you may be included in the class if certification is granted. Monitor case updates through the Project on Predatory Student Lending.
How do I claim Tyndall settlement payments?
The Tyndall settlement is fully administered. If you were eligible and did not file a Tier 2 or 3 claim by applicable deadlines, you cannot now join. Contact the settlement administrator at [email protected] for questions about distributed payments.
Does the settlement affect my ability to sue individually?
Class settlements typically require class members to release claims against defendants. Opting out by stated deadlines preserves your right to file individual lawsuits, but you forfeit settlement benefits. Review settlement notices carefully before deciding.
What happens if I miss the opt-out deadline?
Missing the opt-out deadline means you remain in the class, receive settlement benefits if approved, and cannot pursue individual claims. Opt-out deadlines are strictly enforced. For the COVID-19 case, the deadline is February 20, 2026.
This article provides general information about USC class action lawsuits based on publicly available court documents, legal filings, and credible news reporting. It does not constitute legal advice. Students with questions about specific cases should contact class counsel or consult with an attorney.
Sources: U.S. District Court Central District of California case documents, Los Angeles Superior Court filings, settlement administrator notices, Project on Predatory Student Lending case updates, Student Defense case materials, USC official statements, credible legal news reporting from Law360, ClassAction.org, Higher Ed Dive, and established news outlets.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah