## Facts

- Robert I. Steinberg applied to Chicago Medical School for the 1974–75 academic year and paid a $15 application fee.
- The school rejected his application.
- The school’s published bulletin stated applicants would be selected based on specified academic and personal criteria and without regard to race, creed, or sex.
- Steinberg alleged the school did not evaluate applications under the published criteria and instead used undisclosed nonacademic factors, including family connections to faculty/trustees and ability to make large financial contributions.
- Steinberg sued individually and as a proposed class representative, seeking injunctive relief against the alleged admissions practices and an accounting of fees and related funds; he did not seek admission or a refund of his own fee.
- The trial court dismissed all counts for failure to state a claim; the appellate court reinstated the contract count as a limited class action and affirmed dismissal of the statutory, fraud, and unjust enrichment counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the bulletin’s stated admissions criteria, coupled with payment and acceptance of an application fee, can create an enforceable contract obligating the school to evaluate applicants under those criteria.
2. Whether Illinois consumer-deceptive-practices statutes apply to alleged misrepresentations in a private medical school admissions process.
3. Whether the allegations sufficiently stated claims for common-law fraud and unjust enrichment based on misrepresented admissions criteria and collection of application fees.
4. Whether the action could proceed on a limited class basis given common representations and shared alleged injury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois held the complaint stated a claim for breach of contract based on the alleged promise in the bulletin and the school’s acceptance of the application fee.
- The Court held the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act was inapplicable to this admissions setting.
- The Court’s disposition affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgments below and remanded for further proceedings, including limited class-action treatment consistent with shared representations and injury allegations.

## Legal Principles

- A school’s published bulletin or catalog may constitute enforceable contractual terms when it contains definite evaluative promises and an applicant tenders consideration by paying an application fee that the school accepts.
- On a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded allegations are taken as true; a complaint states a claim if it plausibly alleges contractual duty, breach, and resulting injury.
- Statutes directed to deceptive practices in “trade or commerce” may not extend to an educational admissions relationship absent legislative intent to regulate that context.
- Fraud may be pleaded where a plaintiff alleges a material misrepresentation, knowledge or belief of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance (including paying a fee), and resulting pecuniary loss.
- Class treatment may be appropriate where the challenged representations and the theory of injury are common to applicants, but may be limited to avoid individualized admissions-outcome questions.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court permitted applicants to pursue contract-based relief where a medical school allegedly departed from published admissions criteria after accepting application fees, while rejecting consumer-fraud statutory theories in this context and allowing only limited class-action proceedings focused on common representations and injuries.


Steinberg v. Chi. Med. Sch., 69 Ill. 2d 320, 371 N.E.2d 634 (Ill. 1977)