Judge Tosses Lawsuit Claiming AVMA Limits Veterinarians and Drives Up Pet Care Costs

A federal judge has dismissed an antitrust lawsuit claiming the American Veterinary Medical Association uses its control over veterinary school accreditation to limit the number of veterinarians entering the profession and drive up the cost of pet care.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Varlan in Tennessee dismissed the case brought by Lincoln Memorial University, finding that the veterinary school went to court before it could show a concrete injury from the AVMA’s accreditation rules.

The judge did not decide whether those rules violate antitrust law. Varlan dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing Lincoln Memorial to sue again if the dispute later develops into a definite injury.

Lincoln Memorial sued the American Veterinary Medical Association, or AVMA, in 2025 after its Council on Education placed the university’s Tennessee veterinary program on probation over concerns involving the school’s research standards.

At the center of the lawsuit is a broader claim that the AVMA’s accreditation rules help control how many new veterinarians enter the profession.

Lincoln Memorial alleges the system makes it harder and more expensive for veterinary schools to open or expand, protecting established schools and practitioners from added competition. Fewer veterinary programs, the university argues, mean fewer new veterinarians and higher prices for animal care.

The AVMA represents more than 100,000 veterinarians, and its Council on Education sets accreditation standards for veterinary schools.

The Justice Department entered the case in December, telling the court that veterinary accreditation organizations are subject to federal antitrust law.

Federal officials said accreditation standards can face antitrust scrutiny when they unnecessarily make it harder for new providers to enter a profession. The department took no position on whether Lincoln Memorial had proved that the AVMA crossed that line.

The AVMA denied the university’s allegations and argued that Lincoln Memorial was challenging an accreditation process that was still underway.

Varlan agreed that the case had been filed too soon.

Lincoln Memorial argued that probation had already damaged its reputation, interfered with expansion and made it harder to recruit faculty and secure grants and other funding.

The judge found those claimed harms too dependent on events that remain uncertain. He noted that Lincoln Memorial could still resolve the accreditation concerns before suffering the consequences described in its lawsuit.

A second Lincoln Memorial veterinary school also weakened the university’s predictions about future harm.

The lawsuit raised concerns that the AVMA could block Lincoln Memorial from opening another veterinary program in Orange Park, Florida. During the litigation, however, that program received provisional accreditation and began accepting students.

Varlan cited the Florida development as evidence that some of the injuries Lincoln Memorial predicted may never occur.

The case turned on a doctrine known as ripeness. Federal judges generally cannot decide disputes based mainly on injuries that may or may not happen.

Varlan found Lincoln Memorial had not yet reached that point because its Tennessee program remains accredited and the review process is continuing.

As a result, the court never reached the central antitrust question of whether the AVMA’s accreditation rules unlawfully restrict competition in veterinary education and veterinary services.

Lincoln Memorial said after the ruling that it remains prepared to pursue its claims if future developments support another challenge.

The AVMA said the decision recognizes that veterinary schools have an opportunity to present their positions through the accreditation process.

Lincoln Memorial’s Tennessee veterinary program remains accredited while on probation as the review continues.