Re:College admissions scandal fallout: Stanford students sue...
by dragonwriter on Thursday March 14, 2019 @01:57PM
(#19391680)
> UCLA, USC and Yale are victims of the bad actors involved
There is a mechanism of law for those who torts against a party are a result of torts by others to seek compensation for their liability, “contribution". [0]
> I haven't seen any indication that any colleges involved were aware this was happening in a way they overlooked.
Tort liability under the deceptive trade practices law used to sue the universities [1] doesn't require that they were are of going on, only that they advertised things that they did not provide, in this case a fair admissions process.
> I would love to hear how this lawsuit isn't frivolous
A frivolous lawsuit is, roughly, one where the facts don't support anything a reasonable person could view as eligible for compensation under the law cited. With regard to the deceptive trade practices law under which the universities are sued (other claims are made in the same lawsuit against the other actors in the scandal), advertising a good or service with features it does not actually have is the core of the offense (this is broader than civil fraud, which tends to require deliberate deception.) This seems to be in line with the other information about the scandal, and so unless the suing students have reason to know that the public information misrepresents the facts, the suit seems, on first impression, to be reasonable.
There is a mechanism of law for those who torts against a party are a result of torts by others to seek compensation for their liability, “contribution". [0]
> I haven't seen any indication that any colleges involved were aware this was happening in a way they overlooked.
Tort liability under the deceptive trade practices law used to sue the universities [1] doesn't require that they were are of going on, only that they advertised things that they did not provide, in this case a fair admissions process.
> I would love to hear how this lawsuit isn't frivolous
A frivolous lawsuit is, roughly, one where the facts don't support anything a reasonable person could view as eligible for compensation under the law cited. With regard to the deceptive trade practices law under which the universities are sued (other claims are made in the same lawsuit against the other actors in the scandal), advertising a good or service with features it does not actually have is the core of the offense (this is broader than civil fraud, which tends to require deliberate deception.) This seems to be in line with the other information about the scandal, and so unless the suing students have reason to know that the public information misrepresents the facts, the suit seems, on first impression, to be reasonable.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_claim_(legal)
[1] see https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Co... ; Count II (pp. 21 et seq.)