Luna v. USC

On May 4, 2023, students of the University of Southern California’s (USC) online Master of Social Work (MSW) program filed a class action lawsuit against USC for misrepresentation, false advertising, and other deceptive, unfair and unlawful business practices.  

The complaint states that USC deliberately deceives students by claiming that its online MSW program is the “same” academic program as USC’s long-standing on-campus program other than in format, including by charging the same very high tuition (over $100,000) for both programs. In fact, USC hides that its online MSW program is outsourced almost entirely to a for-profit education company, 2U, Inc. The plaintiff students are seeking a return of money they overpaid and to stop USC from engaging in these behaviors moving forward.

• May 4, 2023: Plaintiffs’ filed their complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

• Sept. 13, 2023: Plaintiffs file First Amended Complaint

• Nov. 2, 2023: USC files demurrer (motion to dismiss) against some, but not all, of plaintiffs’ claims, and motion to strike certain allegations regarding misrepresentations

• Dec. 8, 2023: Plaintiffs file oppositions to demurrer and motion to strike

• March 27, 2024: Oral argument on USC’s demurrer and motion to strike

• April 2, 2024: Court denies most of USC’s demurrer, grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their Unruh Act claim

• May 2, 2024: Plaintiffs file Second Amended Complaint

• Sept. 17, 2024: Court denies USC’s demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

• July 30, 2025: Plaintiffs file Third Amended Complaint, adding allegations regarding unequal scholarships for online students

• Nov. 5, 2025: Plaintiffs file Motion for Class Certification

The case, Stephanie Luna v. University of Southern California, was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiff students are represented by attorneys from the Project on Predatory Student Lending and the San Francisco-based public interest law firm Altshuler Berzon LLP. The putative class includes all California citizens who are or have been USC online MSW students at any time from four years before the filing of the complaint up through when final judgment is entered in the case.

The filing details several ways in which USC targeted and misled students about its online MSW program, including:

• USC repeatedly, to this day, describes its online MSW program as exactly “the same” as the on-campus program, when in fact the instructors, content, curriculum, advising, externships, and placement are different, inferior, and outsourced.

• USC sells its program by claiming that the online students will be taught by its esteemed faculty, when in reality students are taught by contingent employees who have been retained specifically to teach online courses.

• USC sells its program by claiming that students will receive the same curriculum and coursework as its cutting-edge and respected on-campus program, when in reality online students are given pre-recorded, outdated coursework.

• USC tells students they will have access to USC’s respected and well-resourced clinical placement programs and staff, but online students’ clinical placements and career counseling are run by 2U, Inc.

• Students interact with “counselors” and other staff they believed to be employees of USC, with USC email addresses, who are actually employees of 2U, Inc.

• USC permits recruiters, employed by 2U, Inc. to pose as USC employees when they are not and to use high-pressure sales tactics to drive up enrollment (and thus revenue to USC and its corporate partner). These tactics have included outright lies about the program, about scholarships and clinical placements that were not available to online students, and other misrepresentations.

• Finally, the program has been deliberately marketed toward people of color, as USC viewed these prospective students as better marks for “conversion”—that is, more likely to enroll once they were in touch with an “admissions counselor” (recruiter).

• May 4, 2023: Complaint

• August 4, 2023: Joint Initial Status Conference Report

• September 13, 2023: First Amended Complaint

• November 2, 2023: USC’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

• November 2, 2023: USC’s Motion to Strike

• December 8, 2023: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Demurrer

• December 8, 2023:Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Strike

• January 12, 2024: Defendant USCs Reply ISO Demurrer to FAC

• January 12, 2024: Defendant USCs Reply ISO Motion to Strike

• April 2, 2024: Court's Ruling and Order: Defendant's Demurrer and Motion to Strike

• May, 2 2024: Second Amended Class Action Complaint 

• September 17, 2024: Court's Ruling and Order: Defendant's Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

  • Minute Order

• July 30, 2025: Third Amended Class Action Complaint

• November 5, 2025: Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification

• November 5, 2025: Declaration and Expert Report of John Chandler in Support of Motion for Class Cert

• November 5, 2025: Declaration and Expert Report of Stefan Boedeker in Support of Motion for Class Cert

• November 17, 2025: Motion to Seal Materials in Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification

• November 17, 2025: Jennifer Lewis Declaration ISO Sealing of Class Cert Motion

• November 18, 2025: 2U Motion to Seal Class Certification Exhibits

• January 22, 2026: Plaintiffs' Opposition to USC's Motion to Seal

• January 22, 2026: Plaintiffs' Opposition to 2U's Motion to Seal

• January 28, 2026: USC's Reply Brief ISO Motion to Seal Portions of Materials in Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification

• January 28, 2026: 2U Reply ISO Motion to Seal Class Cert Exhibits