Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
450 5th Street, NW, Suite 7100
Washington, DC 20530,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING,
1050 North Highland St., Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the
United States, brings this civil antitrust action to obtain equitable relief against Defendant
National Association for College Admission Counseling. The United States alleges as follows:
I.
1.

INTRODUCTION

This action challenges under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, a

number of rules that restrained competition between colleges and universities (“colleges”) for the
recruitment of first-year and transfer students.
2.

Defendant National Association for College Admission Counseling (“NACAC”)

is the leading national trade association for college admissions. Defendant’s members are
divided roughly into two groups: non-profit colleges and their admissions personnel, and high
schools and their guidance counselors. NACAC’s college members compete vigorously with
each other for college students, both incoming freshmen and transfer students. These colleges

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 11

compete in a variety of college services, including tuition cost, majors offered, ease and cost of
application, campus amenities, quality of education, reputation of the institution, and prospects
for employment following graduation.
3.

One condition of membership in NACAC is adherence to NACAC’s Code of

Ethics and Professional Practices (“CEPP” or “Ethics Rules”), which sets forth mandatory rules
for how member organizations engage in college admissions. These rules are drafted, voted on,
and enforced by NACAC members.
4.

As part of its CEPP, NACAC includes certain rules regarding the recruitment of

students by colleges. Prior to September 2019, among these rules were ones that prevented, or
severely limited, colleges from (1) directly recruiting transfer students from another college, (2)
offering incentives of any kind to college applicants who applied via a process known as Early
Decision, and (3) recruiting incoming college freshmen after May 1 (together, “Recruiting
Rules”).
5.

The Recruiting Rules were not reasonably necessary to any separate, legitimate

procompetitive collaboration between NACAC members. As part of its CEPP, NACAC
establishes many rules and regulations for its members’ conduct throughout the college
admissions process, including, among others, when applications may open and close, the
definitions of Early Decision and Early Access, and the use of paid agents in recruiting students.
Many of these rules appear to strengthen the market for college admissions. The Recruiting
Rules, however, were not reasonably necessary to achieve the otherwise market-enhancing rules
contained in the CEPP, and furthermore had the effect of unlawfully restraining competition
among NACAC’s college members, resulting in harm to college applicants and potential transfer
students.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 11

6.

By establishing and enforcing the Recruiting Rules, NACAC substantially

reduced competition among colleges for college applicants and potential transfer students and
deprived these consumers of the benefits that result from colleges vigorously competing for
students. These Recruiting Rules, which were horizontal agreements among the schools
participating in NACAC, denied American college applicants and potential transfer students
access to competitive financial aid packages and benefits and restricted their opportunities to
move between colleges.
7.

In September 2019, NACAC members voted to remove the Recruiting Rules from

the CEPP. Removal of the Recruiting Rules became effective as of the time of the vote.
8.

NACAC’s Recruiting Rules were unlawful restraints of trade that violated

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The United States seeks an order prohibiting such
agreements and other relief.
II.
9.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Defendant NACAC is located in, and represents members that do business in, the

United States. The rules at issue affected primarily the provision of college services in the United
States. The colleges that provide these college services charge significant prices to students,
many of whom legally reside outside the state. The sale of college services, and the NACAC
rules that affect the sale, are therefore in the flow of and substantially affect interstate commerce.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4, and
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, to prevent and restrain Defendant and its members from
violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

3

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 11

10.

Defendants have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in this district.

Venue is proper in this district under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22, and 28
U.S.C. § 1391.
III.
11.

DEFENDANT

Defendant NACAC is a trade association comprised of college admissions

personnel and high school guidance counselors and their respective institutions. Although
NACAC does have members around the world, its principal focus is on college admissions in the
United States. NACAC currently has in excess of 15,000 members, representing several
thousand colleges and high schools. In addition to maintaining and enforcing the CEPP, NACAC
provides educational training to members, engages in lobbying and other public outreach, and
holds dozens of popular college fairs that allow colleges to meet and recruit prospective students.
IV.
12.

TRADE AND COMMERCE

NACAC is the largest trade association focused on college admissions in the

United States.
13.

There is significant competition among colleges for college students, especially

incoming freshmen. Colleges compete on a number of different dimensions of college services,
including tuition cost, majors offered, ease and cost of application, campus amenities, quality of
education, reputation of the institution, and prospects for employment following graduation. The
focal point for that competition is the college admissions process.
14.

Colleges employ a number of competitive tactics to encourage students to apply

for admission to, and ultimately attend, their institutions. Colleges typically heavily advertise to
prospective applicants, including by sending physical and electronic mailings, by participating in
college fairs, and by direct solicitation on high school campuses. Competition, however, does not

4

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 5 of 11

end there. If a prospective student is accepted by more than one college, there is typically a
competitive negotiation between the student and each college over the financial aid package
offered to the student. Additionally, if a college has not met its enrollment goals by the summer
before school begins, it often will reach back out to prospective students to make a competitive
pitch to entice the student to commit to enrolling at the college in the fall. Finally, even after
classes begin, many colleges advertise college transfer programs that allow students to move
from one college to another between semesters.
15.

In competitive circumstances, colleges would compete vigorously for students to

purchase their college services. This competition benefits students because it lowers the cost of
attendance and increases the incentive that the colleges have to provide high quality or
innovative services. Competition also improves an applicant’s ability to negotiate for a better
financial aid package with the college. Defendant’s Recruiting Rules, however, blunted several
avenues of competition for students and disrupted the normal competitive mechanisms that
would otherwise apply.
V.
16.

THE UNLAWFUL RULES

For decades, NACAC has had a set of rules governing the college admissions

process for its members. Historically, some of the rules were mandatory for all members, and
others were voluntary “best practices.” In 2017, NACAC members voted to reformulate the
mandatory rules into the 2017 CEPP. The CEPP rules are mandatory for all NACAC members,
which includes most non-profit colleges and universities in the United States, and also for any
non-member institutions that participate in NACAC’s college fairs. Accordingly, agreeing to
NACAC membership, or agreeing to participate in a NACAC college fair, is equivalent to
agreeing with other members or college fair participants to execute on the restrictions in the

5

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 6 of 11

CEPP. The 2017 CEPP governs many aspects of the college admissions process for its members,
including, most relevant to this action, the recruitment of students.
17.

The 2017 CEPP included several rules that unreasonably restricted some of the

ways in which colleges recruited incoming freshmen and transfer students. The three Recruiting
Rules at issue in this case are (1) the Transfer Student Recruiting Rule, (2) the Early Decision
Incentives Rule, and (3) the First-Year Undergraduate Recruiting Rule. While the CEPP
certainly included rules and regulations that were aimed at, and actually do, increase
competitiveness between schools and ease the burden of students applying to college, these
Recruiting Rules were not reasonably necessary to those procompetitive rules or any other
separate, legitimate business transaction or collaboration between NACAC’s members. Prior to
the 2017 CEPP, virtually identical rules were voted on and included in earlier NACAC rules and
have been in place for years.
A.

Transfer Student Recruiting Rule
18.

The Transfer Student Recruiting Rule was codified at paragraph II.D.5 of the

2017 CEPP and instructed that, “[c]olleges must not solicit transfer applications from a previous
year’s applicant or prospect pool unless the students have themselves initiated a transfer inquiry
or the college has verified prior to contacting the students that they are either enrolled at a
college that allows transfer recruitment from other colleges or are not currently enrolled in a
college.”
19.

The Transfer Student Recruiting Rule acted as a ban on affirmatively recruiting

transfer students, unduly restraining competition for transfer students amongst colleges. Without
this opportunity for colleges to compete, potential transfer students may be unaware of transfer
opportunities that may provide them lower priced or higher quality college services.

6

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 7 of 11

20.

Absent the Transfer Student Recruiting Rule, colleges can engage in significantly

more recruitment of transfer students through direct solicitation or otherwise. Furthermore,
colleges will likely seek to provide better experiences to their existing student base in order to
retain them in the face of increased competition for transfers.
B.

Early Decision Incentives Rule
21.

The Early Decision Incentives Rule was codified at paragraph II.A.3.a.vi of the

2017 CEPP and provided that “[c]olleges must not offer incentives exclusive to students
applying or admitted under an Early Decision application plan. Examples of incentives include
the promise of special housing, enhanced financial aid packages, and special scholarships for
Early Decision admits.”
22.

NACAC defined Early Decision in the 2017 CEPP as an application plan where

“[s]tudents commit to a first-choice college and, if admitted, agree to enroll and withdraw their
other college applications.” The Early Decision application plan is akin to an exclusive contract
in any other industry. In this case, the student foregoes the opportunity to consider the
competitive offers of other institutions in exchange for an early decision on acceptance. Colleges
thus stand as direct competitors for Early Decision applicants, because those applicants are far
more likely, if accepted, to attend the college. This results in an increased yield, which is the
percentage of accepted applicants that choose to attend the college. Yield is critically important
to colleges—overestimating expected yield can lead to less students attending than anticipated
(thus lowering total tuition received), which could force the college to cut classes or layoff staff.
The increased yield from Early Decision applicants is financially significant to colleges.
23.

The Early Decision Incentives Rule explicitly limited the scope of competition for

Early Decision students by removing the ability of colleges to incent students financially or

7

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 8 of 11

otherwise. At base, the only form of payment an institution may provide in exchange for the
exclusive contract with an applicant is the early decision itself. The rule prohibited all other
forms of competition specifically targeted at particular Early Decision applicants.
24.

Absent the Early Decision Incentives Rule, colleges are free to use any number of

competitive levers to more aggressively recruit students. Some institutions may prefer to offer
only the early decision, while others might compete more aggressively, such as by offering
scholarships, preferential housing, or early course registration for those admitted under Early
Decision.
C.

First-Year Undergraduate Recruiting Rule
25.

The First-Year Undergraduate Recruiting Rule was codified at paragraph II.B.5 of

the 2017 CEPP and required that, among other things, “[c]olleges will not knowingly recruit or
offer enrollment incentives to students who are already enrolled, registered, have declared their
intent, or submitted contractual deposits to other institutions.” Furthermore, while the rule
allowed colleges to “contact students who have neither deposited nor withdrawn their
applications to let them know that they have not received a response from them,” it also
commanded that schools could “neither offer nor imply additional financial aid or other
incentives” were available unless the student had “affirmed that they [had] not deposited
elsewhere and [were] still interested in discussing fall enrollment.”
26.

The First-Year Undergraduate Recruiting Rule imposed significant restraints on a

college’s ability to recruit students. The rule created an arbitrary deadline of May 1 for all
colleges to cease improving their recruitment offers to students, even though many students do
not decide on a college until well after May 1 and many colleges therefore can reallocate
resources to make better offers after May 1. Furthermore, the rule imposed significant hurdles

8

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 9 of 11

before a college could improve its offer to a prospective student, requiring that the student first
affirm both that they “[had] not deposited elsewhere” and were “still interested in discussing fall
enrollment.” By directly limiting the ability of colleges to improve their offers to students, the
First-Year Undergraduate Recruiting Rule operated as a significant restraint on competition.
27.

The arbitrariness of the May 1 deadline was fully highlighted by the recognized

exception to the rule “when students are admitted from a wait list.” Section II.C of the CEPP
regulates institutions’ use of wait lists and explicitly authorizes schools to accept students off of
a wait list as late as August 1, even when those students have already committed to attend
another school. NACAC thus allows for vigorous competition over a student already committed
to another school when a change in circumstances frees up a spot for a student on the wait list.
The change in circumstances that free up additional resources to make a better offer is not
conceptually distinct, but the rules explicitly allowed the former and prohibited the latter,
restricting an opportunity for students to benefit from the sorting process.
28.

Absent the First-Year Undergraduate Recruiting Rule, institutions are free to

continue to improve their offers to students after May 1, to the benefit of those students. If
students have made up their minds about their school of choice, or are otherwise insensitive to
the change in circumstances, they can simply reject any further offers received from other
schools. For students who may change their minds due to a more beneficial offer, continued
recruitment can only work to their benefit.
VI.
29.

VIOLATION ALLEGED

Defendant’s college members are direct competitors in college services and

compete vigorously for students. Defendant coordinated and enforced an anticompetitive

9

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 10 of 11

agreement that restrained colleges from improving their offers or otherwise competing
vigorously to be selected by students in the college admissions process.
30.

Defendant’s Recruiting Rules eliminated significant forms of competition to

attract students. These rules, which were horizontal agreements between NACAC’s college
members, denied college applicants and potential transfer students access to potentially better
financial aid packages and benefits and restricted their opportunities to move between colleges
that offered superior services.
31.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Recruiting Rules constituted unreasonable restraints of

trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
VII.
32.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The United States requests that this Court:
(a)

adjudge and decree that Defendant’s Recruiting Rules are unreasonable
restraints of trade and interstate commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act;

(b)

enjoin and restrain Defendant from enforcing or adhering to any
Recruiting Rules that unreasonably restrict competition for students;

(c)

permanently enjoin and restrain Defendant from establishing similar rules
in the future, except as prescribed by the Court;

(d)

award the United States such other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper to redress and prevent recurrence of the alleged violations and to
dissipate the anticompetitive effects of the illegal agreements entered into
by Defendant; and

(e)

award the United States the costs of this action.

10

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 11 of 11

Dated: December I A, 2019

Respect?illy submitted,

FOR AINTIFF ITED TES OF AMERICA

   

 

 

AARON D. HOAG 0?
Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Chief

Technology and Financial Services Section

Beater?A A 0W

BERNARD A. NIGRO, JR. \3 DANIELLE HAUCK
(D.C. Bar #412357) ADAM SEVERT
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Assistant Chiefs

Technology and Financial Services Section

    

 

KATHLEWNEILL s. Bar #495406)
Senior Director of Investigations and TRAVIS CHAPMAN
Litigation AARON COMENETZ (DC. Bar #479572)
ERIN CRAIG
ADRIENNE HAHN
Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice
Antitmst Division

Technology and Financial Services Section
450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 7100
Washington, DC. 20530

Telephone: (202) 514-4890

Email: ryan.struve@usdoj .gov

11

Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44(Rev. 6/17 DC)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION
COUNSELING,
1050 North Highland St., Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT Arlington

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
450 5th Street, NW, Suite 7100
Washington, DC 20530
(b)COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: INLAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

(c)ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

Ryan S. Struve
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
450 5th Street NW; Suite 7100
Washington, DC 20530
202-514-4890

a

H. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff

Government
0 2 U.S.
Defendant

John J. Miles, Esq.
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
901 K Street, NW; Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
202-326-5008

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

0

112

0 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
0 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of
Parties in item III)

PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
PTF
OFT

PTF

OPT

Citizen of this State

01

01

Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in This State

0 4

04

Citizen of Another State

0 2

0 2

Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5
of Business in Another State

05

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

03

0
. 3

0 6

0 6

Foreign Nation

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT
lace an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a correspondingNature of Suit
0 A. Antitrust

0 B. Personal Injury/

0 C. Administrative Agency
Review

Malpractice
El 410 Antitrust

= 310 Airplane
MI 315 Airplane Product Liability
IM 320 Assault, Libel & Slander
= 330 Federal Employers Liability
= 340 Marine
= 345 Marine Product Liability
= 350 Motor Vehicle
I= 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
= 360 Other Personal Injury
= 362 Medical Malpractice
= 365 Product Liability
MI 367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury Product Liability
= 368 Asbestos Product Liability

0 E. General Civil (Other)
Real Property
= 210 Land Condemnation
IN 220 Foreclosure
= 230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment
MI 240 Torts to Land
IIM 245 Tort Product Liability
M 290 All Other Real Property
Personal Property
= 370 Other Fraud
NI 371 Truth in Lending
= 380 Other Personal Property
Damage
= 385 Property Damage
Product Liability

MI 151 Medicare Act
Social Security
= 861 HIA (139511)
IIIII 862 Black Lung (923)
NM 863 DIWC/DIVVW (405(g ))
= 864 SSID Title XVI
MI 865 RSI (405(g))
Other Statutes
IN 891 Agricultural Acts
1.11 893 Environmental Matters
= 890 Other Statutory Actions (If
Administrative Agency is
Involved)

OR
Bankruptcy
= 422 Appeal 27 USC 158
= 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Prisoner Petitions
lEl 535 Death Penalty
IM 540 Mandamus & Other
= 550 Civil Rights
= 555 Prison Conditions
= 560 Civil Detainee — Conditions
of Confinement
Property Rights
1= 820 Copyrights
NM 830 Patent
= 835 Patent— Abbreviated New
Drug Application
M 840 Trademark

0 D. Temporary Restraining

Order/Preliminary
Injunction
Any nature of suit from any category
may be selected for this category of
case assignment.
*(If Antitrust then A governs)*

0 F. Pro Se General Civil
Federal Tax Suits
1111 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or
defendant)
= 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC
7609
Forfeiture/Penalty
= 625 Drug Related Seizure of
Property 21 USC 881
= 690 Other
Other Statutes
= 375 False Claims Act
11. 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
MI 400 State Reapportionment
MI 430 Banks & Banking
= 450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/etc.
= 460 Deportation

= 462 Naturalization
Application
= 465 Other Immigration
Actions
= 470 Racketeer Influenced
& Corrupt Organization
= 480 Consumer Credit
II. 490 Cable/Satellite TV
= 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
= 896 Arbitration
MI 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
M 950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes
= 890 Other Statutory Actions
(if not administrative agency
review or Privacy Act)

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 2

0

G. Habeas Corpus/

0

2255

0

H. Employment

EJ 530 Habeas Corpus — General

442 Civil Rights — Employment
(criteria: race, gender/sex,
national origin,
discrimination, disability, age,
religion, retaliation)

n 510 Motion/Vacate Sentence
463 Habeas Corpus—Alien
Detainee

0 J.

895 Freedom of Information Act

EJ 152 Recovery of Defaulted

Student Loan

K. Labor/ERISA

0

L. Other Civil Rights

EJ

EJ

Student Loan
(excluding veterans)

(if Privacy Act)

0

0

M. Contract

(non-employment)

(non-employment)

710 Fair Labor Standards Act
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
740 Labor Railway Act
1:=1751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

El 890 Other Statutory Actions

*(If pro se, select this deck)*

*(If pro se, select this deck)*

0

I. FOIA/Privacy Act

Discrimination

=I 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights
Act)
443 Housing/Accommodations
1=440 Other Civil Rights
[1:1445 Americans w/Disabilities —
Employment
446 Americans w/Disabilities —
Other
448 Education

n 110 Insurance
120 Marine
n 130 Miller Act
n 140 Negotiable Instrument
n 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of
Judgment
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
ri 160 Stockholder's Suits
190 Other Contracts
ni 195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

N. Three-Judge
Court
441 Civil Rights — Voting
(if Voting Rights Act)

E1

V. ORIGIN

CI 1 Original 0 2 Removed 0 3 Remanded
Proceeding

from State
Court

from Appellate
Court

0 4 Reinstated 0 5 Transferred 0 6 Multi-district 0 7 Appeal to
or Reopened

Litigation

from another
district (specify)

District Judge
from Mag.
Judge

CI 8 Multi-district
Litigation —
Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)

Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, Agreement in restraint of trade
IV. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS
ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

VII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY

(See instruction)

December 12, 2019

DATE:

DEMAND $
JURY DEMAND:
YES

NO

Check YES only if demanded in complaint
YES II NO
If yes, please complete related case form

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44
Authority for Civil Cover Sheet

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required
bylaw, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the
Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed.
Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.
I.

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident
of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.

111.

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
under Section II.

IV.

CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best
represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding
nature of suit found under the category of the case.

VL

CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.

VIII.

RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk's Office.

Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.

 Case 1:19-cv-03706 Document 1-2 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
COLLEGE ADMISSION COUNSELING,
Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Ryan S. Struve, hereby certify that on December 12, 2019, I caused a copy of the
Complaint, Explanation of Consent Decree Procedures, Stipulation and Order, and
proposed Final Judgment to be served on National Association for College Admission
Counseling by mailing the documents electronically to their duly authorized legal
representatives, as follows:

John J. Miles, Esq.
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
901 K Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20001
202-326-5008

/s/ Ryan S. Struve
Ryan S. Struve
D.C. Bar No. 495406
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 5th St. NW, 7100
Washington, DC 20530
202-514-4890

1