The class action *In re University of Southern California Tuition and Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation* grew out of the abrupt shift in spring 2020, when COVID-19 forced colleges nationwide to close campuses and move instruction online. Students who paid (or still owed) USC tuition and fees for that term alleged they had enrolled in—and were billed for—a premium, in-person university experience that included on-campus instruction, facilities, and services, but instead received remote learning and reduced access to campus resources. USC agreed to a $10 million settlement without admitting wrongdoing; eligible students don’t need to submit a claim to receive a payment, but they can update their address or choose Venmo/PayPal through an election form by Feb. 20, 2026, ahead of a final approval hearing set for March 27, 2026. The lawsuit was filed on the theory that marketing materials, catalogs, and longstanding practice amounted to promises of in-person education and campus benefits, and that charging full tuition and certain fees after the shutdown effectively overcharged students for a materially different product. Its significance goes beyond the dollars: it tests how courts and universities value “in-person” instruction versus remote delivery, and whether tuition is primarily payment for academic credits regardless of modality or also for the broader campus experience. Similar COVID-era tuition and fee cases have been brought against many public and private universities, with mixed outcomes—some dismissed when courts found no enforceable promise of in-person classes, others settling to avoid prolonged litigation and uncertainty—against a backdrop of higher-education regulation that generally requires clear consumer disclosures (and, for certain federal aid rules, accurate representations) but leaves day-to-day tuition pricing and refund policies largely to institutional contracts and state consumer-protection law interpretations applied by the courts.