Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	20. Commitments and Contingencies Adtalem is subject to lawsuits, administrative proceedings, regulatory reviews and investigations associated with financial assistance programs and other matters arising in the normal conduct of its business. As of June 30, 2021, Adtalem believes it has adequately reserved for potential losses. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine, and incidental to the business. Descriptions of certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. We have recorded accruals for those matters where management believes a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated as of June 30, 2021. For those matters for which we have not recorded an accrual, their possible impact on Adtalem’s business, financial condition, or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution, or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate. On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively the “Adtalem Parties”) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the Court granted Defendants’ motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss this complaint as it was substantially similar to the one the Court previously dismissed. The Court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Settlement”) on May 28, 2020. In conjunction with the Settlement, Adtalem was required to establish a settlement fund by placing $44.95 million into an escrow account, which is recorded within prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of each of June 30, 2021 and 2020. Adtalem management determined a loss contingency was probable and reasonably estimable. As such, we also recorded a loss contingency accrual of $44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020 and charged the contingency loss within discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statement of Income (Loss) for the year ended June 30, 2020. As of June 30, 2020, we had anticipated the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2021. We now anticipate the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2022. This loss contingency estimate could differ from actual results and result in additional charges or reversals in future periods. The Court issued an order approving the settlement on October 7, 2020, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of Jose David Valderrama, a class member who objected to the terms of the settlement, a notice to appeal the Court’s order approving the settlement. On November 5, 2020, Richard Peart, another class member who objected to the terms of the settlement, filed a notice to appeal the Court’s order approving the settlement. Those appeals have been consolidated before the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District and have been fully briefed. On January 25, 2018, the Carlson Law Firm (“Carlson”) filed a lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., on behalf of 71 individual former DeVry University students in Rangel v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On May 8, 2018, Carlson filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims which dismissed the claims of 6 students and added claims for 2 other students. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on June 5, 2018. On June 27, 2018, Carlson filed a second lawsuit on behalf of 32 former DeVry University students against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in Lindberg v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The allegations are identical to the allegations in the lawsuit Carlson filed on January 25, 2018. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on August 28, 2018. The court consolidated these two lawsuits on December 10, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on December 18, 2018. On January 2, 2019, Carlson filed a motion to intervene on behalf of 13 additional former DeVry University students seeking to join the consolidated lawsuit. The parties re-filed their briefing on the motions to dismiss so that the motion would apply to all three groups of plaintiffs. On April 24, 2019, the Court granted Adtalem’s and DeVry University’s motions to dismiss, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 7, 2019, that dismissed 3 plaintiffs and aggregated the claims of all remaining plaintiffs, now totaling 109, into a single pleading. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 5, 2019. The motion to dismiss was referred to a magistrate judge. On December 13, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 3, 2020, defendants filed their objections to the report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a response to the objections on January 8, 2020. The District Court judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations on March 12, 2020, and the defendants filed an answer to the complaint on April 10, 2020. In conjunction with the Alvarez v. Adtalem matter referenced below, the parties participated in a mediation on August 4, 2020. On October 14, 2020, through continued negotiations with the mediator, the parties reached a confidential agreement in principal to settle all claims other than for one plaintiff. After finalizing the settlement agreement, the parties filed on December 31, 2020 a joint stipulation of dismissal which dismissed 107 of the 109 plaintiffs. Counsel for plaintiffs moved to withdraw as counsel for one of the remaining two plaintiffs, and on January 4, 2021, the Court granted the motion to withdraw as counsel. On April 9, 2021, the Court dismissed this plaintiffs’ claims for failure to prosecute her claims. The last plaintiff reached a settlement agreement with defendants and the Court dismissed this plaintiff’s claims on April 22, 2021. On April 4, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm sent notice pursuant to California Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, of 105 individuals who purportedly have claims against DeVry University and Adtalem based on allegedly deceptive comments made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree; specifically, that 90% of graduates obtained a job in their chosen field of study within six months of graduation, and that graduates were paid more than graduates of other universities. On July 16, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division against Adtalem and DeVry University on behalf of 102 individual former DeVry University students in Alvarez v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. The plaintiffs contend that defendants misrepresented the benefits of graduating from DeVry University and falsely and misleadingly advertised the employment rate and income rate of their graduates to induce potential students to purchase educational products and services, and to remain students through graduation. The lawsuit seeks exemplary damages, restitution, economic damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of suit. The plaintiffs brought claims for fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, civil theft, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violation of California’s False Advertising Law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 1, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on January 13, 2020. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 31, 2020, which added 12 additional plaintiffs and dismissed 2 others. Defendants filed an amended answer on March 2, 2020. The parties participated in a court-ordered mediation on August 4, 2020. On October 14, 2020, through continued negotiations with the mediator, the parties reached a confidential agreement in principal to settle all claims other than for three plaintiffs. After finalizing the settlement agreement, the parties filed on December 31, 2020 a joint stipulation of dismissal which dismissed 108 of the 112 plaintiffs. On January 19, 2021, the Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all the claims for the 108 plaintiffs. Of the remaining four plaintiffs, one reached a settlement agreement with defendants and executed the necessary settlement documentation. On April 13, 2021, the Court dismissed this plaintiff’s claim with prejudice. On December 9, 2020, counsel for the final three plaintiffs moved to withdraw as their counsel, and the Court granted that motion on January 21, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the last three plaintiffs on March 31, 2021. The last three plaintiffs did not timely respond to the motion to dismiss. As such, the Court issued an order to show cause why the claims of the last three remaining plaintiffs should not be dismissed. When the remaining three plaintiffs failed to file their responses, the Court dismissed the case on June 1, 2021. Stoltmann Law Offices is representing hundreds of individuals who have filed claims with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”) alleging fraud-based claims based on DeVry University’s graduate employment statistics. Stoltmann Law Offices has paid the filing fees for certain of these arbitrations to move forward. JAMS has sent commencement letters in several waves. Respondents have filed answers in response to certain of these arbitration demands. These arbitrations are in various stages of litigation. Adtalem believes the allegations in these arbitrations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend those claims. On January 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Chamberlain by Tanesia Dean on behalf of herself and similarly situated students of Chamberlain. The complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Chamberlain related to its decision to transition all classes online in March 2020, in light of the global pandemic, without altering tuition or fees. The putative class was defined to include all students, nationwide, who paid tuition and fees during the following academic sessions: May 2020, July 2020, September 2020, November 2020, and January 2021. Plaintiff sought monetary relief exceeding $5 million, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. On April 5, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The motion to dismiss was granted in full on August 16, 2021 and the case was dismissed. Plaintiff has 30 days to appeal the ruling. On March 12, 2021, Travontae Johnson, a current student of Chamberlain, filed a putative class action against Chamberlain in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The plaintiff claims that Chamberlain’s use of Respondus Monitor, an online remote proctoring tool for student examinations violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/15. More particularly, the plaintiff claims that Chamberlain required students to use Respondus Monitor, which collected, captured, stored, used, and disclosed students’ biometric identifiers and biometric information without written and informed consent. The plaintiff also alleges that Chamberlain lacked a legally compliant written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. The potential class purportedly includes all students who took an assessment using the proctoring tool, as a student of Chamberlain in Illinois, at any time from March 12, 2016 through January 20, 2021. The plaintiff and the putative class seek damages in excess of $50,000, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiff and class also seek an unspecified amount of enhanced damages based on alleged negligent or reckless conduct by Chamberlain. On April 19, 2021 and May 5, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead, which resulted in an extension until June 16, 2021. On June 16, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On June 29, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 19, 2021, Chamberlain filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Chamberlain believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

20. Commitments and Contingencies

Adtalem is subject to lawsuits, administrative proceedings, regulatory reviews and investigations associated with financial assistance programs and other matters arising in the normal conduct of its business. As of June 30, 2021, Adtalem believes it has adequately reserved for potential losses. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine, and incidental to the business. Descriptions of certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. We have recorded accruals for those matters where management believes a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated as of June 30, 2021. For those matters for which we have not recorded an accrual, their possible impact on Adtalem’s business, financial condition, or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution, or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively the “Adtalem Parties”) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the Court granted Defendants’ motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss this complaint as it was substantially similar to the one the Court previously dismissed. The Court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the “Settlement”) on May 28, 2020. In conjunction with the Settlement, Adtalem was required to establish a settlement fund by placing $44.95 million into an escrow account, which is recorded within prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of each of June 30, 2021 and 2020. Adtalem management determined a loss contingency was probable and reasonably estimable. As such, we also recorded a loss contingency accrual of $44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020 and charged the contingency loss within discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statement of Income (Loss) for the year ended June 30, 2020. As of June 30, 2020, we had anticipated the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2021. We now anticipate the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2022. This loss contingency estimate could differ from actual results and result in additional charges or reversals in future periods. The Court issued an order approving the settlement on October 7, 2020, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of Jose David

Valderrama, a class member who objected to the terms of the settlement, a notice to appeal the Court’s order approving the settlement. On November 5, 2020, Richard Peart, another class member who objected to the terms of the settlement, filed a notice to appeal the Court’s order approving the settlement. Those appeals have been consolidated before the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District and have been fully briefed.

On January 25, 2018, the Carlson Law Firm (“Carlson”) filed a lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., on behalf of 71 individual former DeVry University students in Rangel v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. On May 8, 2018, Carlson filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims which dismissed the claims of 6 students and added claims for 2 other students. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on June 5, 2018. On June 27, 2018, Carlson filed a second lawsuit on behalf of 32 former DeVry University students against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in Lindberg v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The allegations are identical to the allegations in the lawsuit Carlson filed on January 25, 2018. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on August 28, 2018. The court consolidated these two lawsuits on December 10, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on December 18, 2018. On January 2, 2019, Carlson filed a motion to intervene on behalf of 13 additional former DeVry University students seeking to join the consolidated lawsuit. The parties re-filed their briefing on the motions to dismiss so that the motion would apply to all three groups of plaintiffs. On April 24, 2019, the Court granted Adtalem’s and DeVry University’s motions to dismiss, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 7, 2019, that dismissed 3 plaintiffs and aggregated the claims of all remaining plaintiffs, now totaling 109, into a single pleading. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 5, 2019. The motion to dismiss was referred to a magistrate judge. On December 13, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 3, 2020, defendants filed their objections to the report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a response to the objections on January 8, 2020. The District Court judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations on March 12, 2020, and the defendants filed an answer to the complaint on April 10, 2020. In conjunction with the Alvarez v. Adtalem matter referenced below, the parties participated in a mediation on August 4, 2020. On October 14, 2020, through continued negotiations with the mediator, the parties reached a confidential agreement in principal to settle all claims other than for one plaintiff. After finalizing the settlement agreement, the parties filed on December 31, 2020 a joint stipulation of dismissal which dismissed 107 of the 109 plaintiffs. Counsel for plaintiffs moved to withdraw as counsel for one of the remaining two plaintiffs, and on January 4, 2021, the Court granted the motion to withdraw as counsel. On April 9, 2021, the Court dismissed this plaintiffs’ claims for failure to prosecute her claims. The last plaintiff reached a settlement agreement with defendants and the Court dismissed this plaintiff’s claims on April 22, 2021.

On April 4, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm sent notice pursuant to California Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, of 105 individuals who purportedly have claims against DeVry University and Adtalem based on allegedly deceptive comments made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree; specifically, that 90% of graduates obtained a job in their chosen field of study within six months of graduation, and that graduates were paid more than graduates of other universities. On July 16, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division against Adtalem and DeVry University on behalf of 102 individual former DeVry University students in Alvarez v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. The plaintiffs contend that defendants misrepresented the benefits of graduating from DeVry University and falsely and misleadingly advertised the employment rate and income rate of their graduates to induce potential students to purchase educational products and services, and to remain students through graduation. The lawsuit seeks exemplary damages, restitution, economic damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of suit. The plaintiffs brought claims for fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, civil theft, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violation of California’s False Advertising Law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 1, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on January 13, 2020. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 31, 2020, which added 12 additional plaintiffs and dismissed 2 others. Defendants filed an amended answer on March 2, 2020. The parties participated in a court-ordered mediation on August 4, 2020. On

October 14, 2020, through continued negotiations with the mediator, the parties reached a confidential agreement in principal to settle all claims other than for three plaintiffs. After finalizing the settlement agreement, the parties filed on December 31, 2020 a joint stipulation of dismissal which dismissed 108 of the 112 plaintiffs. On January 19, 2021, the Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all the claims for the 108 plaintiffs. Of the remaining four plaintiffs, one reached a settlement agreement with defendants and executed the necessary settlement documentation. On April 13, 2021, the Court dismissed this plaintiff’s claim with prejudice. On December 9, 2020, counsel for the final three plaintiffs moved to withdraw as their counsel, and the Court granted that motion on January 21, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the last three plaintiffs on March 31, 2021. The last three plaintiffs did not timely respond to the motion to dismiss. As such, the Court issued an order to show cause why the claims of the last three remaining plaintiffs should not be dismissed. When the remaining three plaintiffs failed to file their responses, the Court dismissed the case on June 1, 2021.

Stoltmann Law Offices is representing hundreds of individuals who have filed claims with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”) alleging fraud-based claims based on DeVry University’s graduate employment statistics. Stoltmann Law Offices has paid the filing fees for certain of these arbitrations to move forward. JAMS has sent commencement letters in several waves. Respondents have filed answers in response to certain of these arbitration demands. These arbitrations are in various stages of litigation. Adtalem believes the allegations in these arbitrations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend those claims.

On January 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Chamberlain by Tanesia Dean on behalf of herself and similarly situated students of Chamberlain. The complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Chamberlain related to its decision to transition all classes online in March 2020, in light of the global pandemic, without altering tuition or fees. The putative class was defined to include all students, nationwide, who paid tuition and fees during the following academic sessions: May 2020, July 2020, September 2020, November 2020, and January 2021. Plaintiff sought monetary relief exceeding $5 million, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. On April 5, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The motion to dismiss was granted in full on August 16, 2021 and the case was dismissed. Plaintiff has 30 days to appeal the ruling.

On March 12, 2021, Travontae Johnson, a current student of Chamberlain, filed a putative class action against Chamberlain in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The plaintiff claims that Chamberlain’s use of Respondus Monitor, an online remote proctoring tool for student examinations violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/15. More particularly, the plaintiff claims that Chamberlain required students to use Respondus Monitor, which collected, captured, stored, used, and disclosed students’ biometric identifiers and biometric information without written and informed consent. The plaintiff also alleges that Chamberlain lacked a legally compliant written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. The potential class purportedly includes all students who took an assessment using the proctoring tool, as a student of Chamberlain in Illinois, at any time from March 12, 2016 through January 20, 2021. The plaintiff and the putative class seek damages in excess of $50,000, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiff and class also seek an unspecified amount of enhanced damages based on alleged negligent or reckless conduct by Chamberlain. On April 19, 2021 and May 5, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead, which resulted in an extension until June 16, 2021. On June 16, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. On June 29, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 19, 2021, Chamberlain filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Chamberlain believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case.