It's interesting and perhaps revealing that Henrik seems to be equating market economics with the freedom to operate a degree-mill. But this isn't a discussion of political theory. It's an inquiry into the legal status of Knightsbridge "University", and into how the status of 'university' is acquired in Denmark. Henrik asserts that anyone in Denmark is free to call themselves a "university" and to distribute "degrees", so long as they don't accept state funding. That may or may not be true. But if it is, that means that Denmark has weaker university standards (precisely none) than do any of the places (Wyoming etc.) that are routinely criticised for their lax standards. That's very useful to know when we are considering a Danish university. I think that the United States has more experience with private universities than does Denmark. We have several thousand of them, while Denmark seems to have had none in its long history (and according to Eurodice, still doesn't). In the United States, those proposing to operate a degree-granting institution have to register it with their state. (Schools of religion may be an exception.) The various states enforce standards on their private universities as they see fit. Those standards range from minimal to strict. But even the most minimal far exceed what you say is true in Denmark. That makes me think that this Danish loophole (assuming that it exists) is an unintentional omission. Given Denmark's proven solicitude for the welfare of its people in all other spheres, it's unlikely that they would have no interest in the quality of academic provision provided by Denmark's universities. Besides, if this hands-off policy was consciously intended to throw open the gates to any and all kinds of "private universities", no matter what they really are or what they are really doing, then where in the world is the rest of Denmark's private higher education sector?