The implication of hypocrisy only works for people on record supporting the suit, if it works at all.

Which, IMO, it doesn't anyway, since the other things you mention are generally overt parts of the admission process, and thus factually distinguishable from the undisclosed distortion at issue in the suit, in ways which can reasonably viewed as relevant to both the deceptive trade practices law on which the claims against the universities in the suit are based and the reasonable ethical principle that it is unethical to p accept payment resulting from false representations one has made regarding a service one is selling, and that such ill-gotten gains should be disgorged when discovered even if the false representation was not intentionally false.