← Blog

The Supreme Court Decided: Your Private School Also Responds to Profeco

October 19, 2026 · 5 min read

On June 22, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that a private school, when charging tuition regularly, is a provider for the purposes of the Federal Consumer Protection Law: Profeco can receive and resolve complaints about charges and refunds, regardless of the educational recognition or other educational status.

What the Court Decided

On June 22, 2026, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) unanimously resolved Direct Amparo in Review 1762/2026, proposed by Minister Sara Irene Herrerías Guerra. The core question was simple and, for any private school, uncomfortable: can the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (Profeco) receive and resolve complaints against a private school, or is that authority exclusive to educational authorities?

The Court answered that yes, it can. A private school that provides education regularly and in exchange for compensation —enrollment, tuition, fees— fits the legal definition of 'provider' used in the Federal Consumer Protection Law (LFPC). This is enough for Profeco to have jurisdiction over the commercial part of that relationship, whether or not there is an Official Validity of Studies Recognition (RVOE) or any other educational status.

The Case That Triggered It

The dispute originated a decade ago: a parent requested a refund of enrollment, tuition, and supplies from a private school after notifying, before the school year, that their child would no longer attend. The school refused. The parent filed a complaint with Profeco, which sanctioned the school. The institution challenged that sanction in court, arguing that it provides a 'professional non-commercial service' and that, because it is education, the only competent authority is the educational authority, not Profeco.

The case reached the Court, which ruled against that defense. The criterion was that regularly charging tuition in exchange for a service is exactly the type of relationship that the LFPC aims to protect, without the educational nature of the service excluding it.

Two Laws, Two Authorities: How It’s Divided

The Court did not strip authority from SEP or educational organizations: it clearly separated what each reviews.

- Profeco, based on this unequivocal ruling, reviews the commercial aspects: charges, refunds, contract conditions, price advertising, promotions, and customer treatment.

- The educational authority continues to review pedagogical matters: validity of curricula, RVOE, teaching staff, academic quality.

A complaint about whether a tuition fee is refunded or not, or about whether the contract you signed states one thing and the school charges another, falls under Profeco. A complaint about the curriculum or the teacher’s degree does not.

What This Means for Your School, Specifically

Before this ruling, several private schools argued — as in this case — that Profeco had nothing to do with them. That argument is no longer valid. The Court closed the debate: if you charge for education regularly, you are a provider for the purposes of the LFPC, and a parent can file their complaint with Profeco just as easily as they would against any other business.

This is not entirely new: for years, Profeco has published recommendations on what a private school can and cannot charge — for example, that it cannot force parents to buy uniforms or supplies from a single provider, or raise tuition mid-cycle without agreement from most parents or the parent association. What changes with this amparo is that this authority is now confirmed by the Court against the most common argument to evade it: 'We are an educational institution, not a commercial provider.' That argument no longer protects any school.

What to Review in Your School This Week

- The educational services contract. It should clearly specify what is included in enrollment, what tuition covers, how many payments there are, what happens if the family withdraws before or during the cycle, and the timeline for refunds.

- The written refund policy. If you decide case-by-case today, it’s time to document it: this was the point that triggered this dispute.

- The payment schedule and discounts. They must be published and consistent for everyone; any tuition increase mid-cycle requires agreement from most users or the parent association, not a unilateral decision by the school.

- Price and promotion advertising. What you advertise in flyers, on your website, or on social media must match exactly what you charge; LFPC also regulates this, and Profeco can now enforce it against a school without the educational argument protecting it.

- Who in your school handles such complaints. It’s advisable to have a person or area responsible for receiving and resolving billing claims before they reach Profeco: school-level reconciliation is always faster and less costly than an administrative process.

What Does Not Change

SEP, your state’s Secretary of Education, and the RVOE still decide whether your educational offer is valid. This ruling does not diminish their authority nor does it impose new academic requirements on you. It simply closes a door some schools used to avoid accountability to Profeco regarding money and contractual relationships with families. That door, after June 22, 2026, no longer exists.