Parties & Background
Post University, a for-profit higher education institution headquartered in Connecticut, offers a wide range of undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs across several schools. Course Hero operates a widely-used online learning platform at www.coursehero.com, enabling users—primarily students—to upload and access academic materials such as study guides, lecture notes, exams, and course syllabi. As of the time of litigation, the platform boasted tens of millions of documents uploaded by users from more than 50,000 educational institutions and trade schools. Course Hero monetizes this user-provided content through subscriptions, pay-per-access “Unlocks,” and a premium tutoring service. The company markets itself as a collaborative learning platform, but it has been criticized for facilitating academic dishonesty and profiting from unauthorized distribution of copyrighted educational content.
Post alleges a systemic infringement model whereby Course Hero (1) receives user-uploaded documents, (2) intentionally creates derivative “Preview” versions obscuring content behind paywalls, and (3) profits from “Unlocks” purchased by students to access full versions of protected documents. Post accuses Course Hero of both direct and contributory/vicarious copyright infringement and DMCA violations—including manipulating or removing Copyright Management Information (CMI).
A Direct Confrontation Between a University and a Major EdTech Platform
At its core, Post University v. Course Hero (Learneo, Inc.) is a copyright and trademark infringement case involving a private university suing a major online educational platform—an unusual plaintiff in a space typically dominated by textbook publishers or media companies. For Post, the stakes involve control over its pedagogical content, institutional reputation, and accreditation integrity; for Course Hero, the case strikes at the heart of its user-generated content model and DMCA safe harbor reliance. Course Hero moved for summary judgment on Post’s claims. The Court denied Course Hero’s motion on the core intellectual property claims brought on Post.
Allegations of a Systematic Scheme to Circumvent Copyright Law
One of the most significant aspects is the Court’s treatment of the DMCA CMI claims under 17 U.S.C. § 1202. The court denied summary judgment for Course Hero on these claims, finding that Post had plausibly alleged and supported both prongs of the double scienter requirement—that Course Hero knowingly removed or altered CMI and did so with the intent to enable or conceal infringement.
The Court rejected arguments that simply branding documents with Course Hero’s logo or watermarks couldn’t be “false CMI”—a holding that, if sustained through trial or appeal, could materially affect how User-Generated Content (UGC) platforms operate, especially those modifying uploaded content.
The “Preview” Model as a Derivative Work Raises Fair Use and Preemption Concerns
The case also delves into the legality of Course Hero’s creation of “Previews”—blurred, truncated versions of uploaded content displayed to non-paying users. Post asserts these are unauthorized derivative works used to drive subscription revenue and tutoring upsells. This monetization strategy—particularly when previews still include identifying text or logos—pushes the limits of the DMCA safe harbor and fair use doctrine. The court’s treatment of this issue may set important precedent for digital platforms relying on similar access models.
Trademark and Lanham Act Claims Post-Dastar
Course Hero moved to dismiss Lanham Act claims under Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox, 539 U.S. 23 (2003), arguing that false designation of origin claims cannot be based on unattributed or misattributed authorship of expressive works. The court granted summary judgment on this issue, reaffirming Dastar’s broad preclusive scope. But it left intact claims based on unauthorized use of Post’s registered word and design marks, including stylized university logos—maintaining some commercial trademark liability exposure.
Higher Education Meets Platform Accountability
This is one of the first substantial copyright and trademark lawsuits brought by an institution against a tech company accused of exploiting educational materials. It signals rising concern in academia about content leakage, credential dilution, and cheating facilitation via online platforms. It may catalyze broader litigation by other universities, especially if Post prevails.
Bottom Line
The case is significant for its direct challenge to the UGC defense structure under the DMCA, its aggressive use of § 1202 CMI claims, and its potential impact on how educational platforms handle user-submitted content. It also tests the boundaries of trademark law post-Dastar and raises important policy questions about platform responsibility in the academic context.
The case is: Post University Inc. v. Learneo, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-1242 (D. Conn. Sept. 23, 2025)
