Prestige Argument Rejected
The majority dismissed Budet’s claim that Rutgers’ overall prestige unfairly bolstered his program, saying the theory was speculative at best. Judge Bibas drew a sharp analogy: while a Harvard degree might confer prestige even on its extension school, that “halo effect” could not be stretched to Rutgers’ certificate programs.
His skepticism mirrored remarks made during oral arguments, when Bibas pressed Budet’s counsel on what, exactly, was wrong with the bargain Budet claimed he didn’t receive.
A Dissenting View: Prestige Does Matter
In a dissent, Judge Peter J. Phipps sided with Budet, arguing the majority misapplied standards under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Phipps contended that Budet plausibly alleged he overpaid for his program based on Rutgers’ purportedly inflated prestige, and that this amounted to a real injury traceable to the university’s conduct.
Phipps argued that, had the majority properly applied the test, Budet’s statutory fraud claims — and potentially his others — would have survived.
