We, as members of the class action lawsuit against BAR/BRI, have survived summary judgment, and the defendants failed to get all the claims dismissed against them. Like I care. Actually, I was just bothered by the way the administration at my school was so dead set on convincing us that we were going to fail if we didn’t take BAR/BRI. It was do or die.
Tying is an agreement to sell one product on the condition that the buyer purchase a different, or tied, product. Park claims BAR/BRI violated federal law because it allegedly forced prospective lawyers to buy not only BAR/BRI’s preparatory materials for the multistate bar exam, but also prep materials for the buyer’s particular state exam.
The defendants argue there was no unlawful tying because the BAR/BRI course is a single, functionally integrated package of services. Park counters that multistate materials and state-specific materials are separate products. He contends he, as a law student in 2002, had to purchase both.
Reading the claims makes this much more interesting, especially since I haven’t looked at this case since I received my piece of paper as an honorary member of the class. But the arguments are fascinating and true. Micromash has all its programs divided. MBE, essays, or both? PMBR, which recently lost a copyright lawsuit, only offers an MBE prep course. BAR/BRI is an all or nothing course, and the lectures aren’t even live in some cities (San Antonio, for one but thankfully some profs stepped in on some days). It’s $2000 for some good materials and some bad.
Needless to say, I’m looking forward to the outcome of this case.
Via Collateral Evidence