TACOMA, Wash. — A lawsuit filed against the University of Puget Sound (UPS) is raising fresh questions about how colleges manage prepaid meal funds and whether those practices run afoul of Washington state law. The complaint, filed May 13 in Pierce County Superior Court by former student Katherine Kittlitz, accuses the Tacoma university of violating the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Gift Certificate Law by requiring students to purchase prepaid “dining dollars” meal plans that expired each year, forcing unused funds to revert to the institution instead of being refunded or retained by students.

According to the lawsuit, residential students at the university are required to buy a meal plan each semester and may only adjust their plan choices within the first 10 days of the term. Many students end up with more dining dollars than they can realistically spend; unused balances are largely forfeited at the end of each academic year, except for a $25 carry?over from fall to spring, the complaint states. The plaintiff argues this forfeiture amounts to an unjust enrichment of the university and a violation of consumer protection standards.

“The university knew (or should have known) that it was unreasonable to expect an average student to use all of his or her meal plan(s) and/or Dining Dollars during any given semester,” the complaint says. “Nonetheless, intending to gain a financial windfall, Defendant still sold Plaintiff and every Class member a meal plan(s) that included more Dining Dollars than the average student would consume.”

Representatives for UPS have denied the allegations. In a statement issued on May 29, university spokesperson Veronica Craker said the institution “disputes the complaint allegations and will respond through the legal process,” but did not provide further comment due to the pending litigation.

The legal theory underpinning the lawsuit is noteworthy for its reliance on Washington’s Gift Certificate Law, which generally prohibits expiration of gift certificates and requires that they remain valid until redeemed or replaced. Under that statute, prepaid value for services or goods — even when provided by an educational institution — may be protected from arbitrary expiration. By treating dining dollars like a declining balance that resets at the end of each academic year, the lawsuit alleges the university effectively imposed unlawful expiration terms and unfairly withheld money that students had already paid.

The complaint also invokes the Washington Consumer Protection Act, a broad statute designed to prohibit unfair or deceptive business practices in the marketplace. If meal plan terms are found to be unfairly structured or inadequately disclosed, the law could be interpreted to prohibit such practices. The lawsuit seeks class?action status; it calls for the return of all allegedly improperly collected or withheld funds, unspecified damages, and legal fees.

While this lawsuit marks a prominent legal challenge in Washington state, it is not entirely isolated. Legal observers note that similar class actions alleging violations of gift?card or consumer protection laws over unused meal plan balances have been filed in multiple states during the past several years. A law firm cited in the complaint described this as “a new wave of class actions sweeping higher education.” For students and families, these cases raise concerns about how mandatory meal plans are priced, structured, and enforced.

At Puget Sound, meal plans operate through “dining dollars,” funds loaded onto a student’s campus card that can be used to purchase food in dining facilities. According to the university’s own published information, these funds are priced individually and function much like a prepaid debit account. The university’s move to a weekly meal plan model beginning in the 2026?27 school year appears partially designed to address student concerns over meal affordability and fund usage patterns; the transition to weekly meal allotments rather than a declining balance model may reduce the likelihood of large unspent balances.

Under the new structure, students choose among several weekly meal tiers — and unused Flex Cash resets weekly — instead of buying a large lump sum at the start of each semester. The university said this change was made based on student feedback about meal accessibility and budgeting, though its announcement did not reference legal compliance issues with leftover funds.

Legal analysts emphasize that legislative and regulatory frameworks governing university fees and refunds in Washington are often specific to tuition and official fees, with separate statutory language addressing refunds or cancellations of tuition and fee payments when a student withdraws early. For example, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Section 28B.15.600 governs refund or cancellation of tuition and “services and activities fees,” but does not explicitly address prepaid dining funds. That statute allows partial refunds under certain conditions when a student withdraws from courses early in the term. However, commentators say that meal plan funds may not fit neatly into these categories, leaving a legal gray area that the current lawsuit aims to clarify.

Developments in this case will be closely watched by institutions across Washington and potentially beyond. Many colleges and universities employ similar prepaid dining models that have historically allowed little or no refund of unused balances. If a court finds that such policies violate state law, institutions may be compelled to revise their meal plan structures or refund practices to comply with consumer protection requirements. Students groups and legal advocates say the outcome could strengthen financial protections for students and prompt greater transparency in the pricing and administration of mandatory campus services.

For now, the University of Puget Sound will defend its policies in court, and the ultimate interpretation of how state consumer protection and gift certificate laws apply to university dining plans remains to be resolved.