Lawsuits where proctoring vendors are defendants.
39 cases tracked across federal, state, appellate, and administrative proceedings.
ACLU of Northern California / EFF Letter to California Supreme Court re: ExamSoft
Administrative letter (no docket)
Use of ExamSoft for the October 2020 California Bar Exam violated CCPA, raised facial-recognition bias concerns disproportionately affecting test-takers of color and those wearing religious dress, and risked privacy/security harms.
Amanda West, et al. v. ExamSoft Worldwide Inc. (consolidated multistate "Barmageddon" class actions)
1:14-cv-22950-UU (lead case in S.D. Fla.)
SofTest software used during the July 28-29, 2014 bar exam in 43 states failed during essay-upload window, leaving thousands of test-takers unable to submit answers; ExamSoft failed to provide effective …
BIPA case against Proctorio (caption not publicly identified)
Investigation/Filing reference — case caption and docket not publicly indexed
Per Proctorio CEO Mike Olsen statement on company blog: this BIPA case was dismissed because Proctorio "doesn't collect biometrics."
Customer satellite suits released by Veiga settlement: Johnson v. Northwestern, Powell v. DePaul, Fee v. Illinois Institute of Technology, Harvey v. Resurrection University
Multiple cases (Powell: 21-cv-3001 N.D. Ill.; Fee, Harvey: N.D. Ill.; Johnson: Cook County)
Universities collected biometric face-geometry data via Respondus Monitor without compliant BIPA notice or consent.
DOJ amicus intervention in Dudley v. Miami University of Ohio (Pearson products implicated as inaccessible vendor product)
S.D. Ohio (specific docket not in public sources reviewed)
DOJ identified Pearson coursework software as among vendor products inaccessible to blind students at Miami University; amicus intervention in evaluating Miami's ADA Title II compliance.
Doe v. PSI Services LLC (PSI BIPA Workforce Settlement)
Case number on settlement website psibipasettlement.com
BIPA workforce fingerprint case alleging PSI required employee fingerprint scans without compliant notice, consent, or retention policy.
Frederick et al. v. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc.
Originally Cir. Ct. Cook County 2021-CH-01276; removed to N.D. Ill. as 1:21-cv-02190 on 4/22/2021; settlement docketed in DuPage County as 2021L001116
ExamSoft's facial-recognition and AI-driven proctoring tools collected and stored Illinois students' face geometry without informed written consent or a publicly available retention/destruction schedule.
Healy v. Honorlock, Incorporated
9:21-cv-81912 (federal); originally Palm Beach County 15th Judicial Circuit (state, Judge Janis Keyser)
Underlying state-court complaint alleged tort claims arising from Honorlock's online proctoring practices; Honorlock removed to federal court and moved to compel individual arbitration based on its terms of service.
In re: Inclusive Access Course Materials Antitrust Litigation (Pearson Education named defendant)
MDL No. 2946
Defendants conspired through "Inclusive Access" digital-textbook bundles to monopolize the textbook market, suppress the secondhand market, and raise prices for students. Pearson 20-F filings reference 14 U.S. lawsuits and 1 …
Linkletter v. Proctorio, Inc. (anti-SLAPP application; Proctorio originally plaintiff but Linkletter is in defendant-like posture seeking dismissal)
BC Sup. Ct. (lower court); 2023 BCCA 160 (Court of Appeal); SCC leave denied 2024
Proctorio sued Linkletter for tweeting links to publicly available Proctorio YouTube videos demonstrating proctoring software capabilities. Linkletter filed anti-SLAPP application to dismiss as strategic litigation against public participation.
No publicly indexed U.S. lawsuit located against Kryterion as defendant
N/A
Public records reviewed only show Better Business Bureau-style consumer complaints filed via Revdex.com; no docketed civil litigation was located.
No publicly indexed U.S. lawsuit located against Mercer Mettl as defendant
N/A
No public Indian high court rulings, U.S. lawsuits, India Personal Data Protection Authority actions, or EU GDPR enforcement actions naming Mercer Mettl as defendant were located in sources reviewed.
No publicly indexed U.S., U.K., or Norwegian lawsuit located against Inspera as defendant
N/A
The Cambridge English Faculty disruption of May 27, 2024 generated University-level investigations and a faculty decision (November 2024) to revert to handwritten exams; Inspera publicly acknowledged that two support requests …
Patent infringement suit filed July 11 by unnamed plagiarism-product company against Proctorio and other companies
Caption and docket not publicly indexed in sources reviewed
Per Proctorio blog: "On July 11th, a company brought separate lawsuits against Proctorio and a number of other companies for patent infringement of their plagiarism product." "Quickly dismissed by plaintiff."
Patterson v. Respondus, Inc. and Lewis University (originally Hinds v. Respondus)
1:20-cv-07692 (federal); originally Cir. Ct. Cook County 2020-CH-06814
Lewis University and Respondus collected face-geometry biometric data from students taking remote exams without BIPA-compliant notice, written consent, or retention/destruction policy.
Veiga, et al. v. Respondus, Inc.
2023LA000430 (DuPage County); previously 1:21-cv-02620 (N.D. Ill.); originally Cir. Ct. Cook County
Respondus Monitor used webcams and microphones to capture facial-recognition templates and other biometric data of Illinois exam takers without compliant notice, consent, or retention policy.
Verificient 2020 security breach class action (caption not publicly identified)
Caption and docket not publicly indexed in sources reviewed
Class action arising from October 13, 2020 Verificient security breach affecting students at Western Ontario, U of Regina, CUNY, MIT, Loyola Chicago, and others.
EEOC v. Pearson Education, Inc.
2:25-cv-12214
Pearson failed to provide reasonable accommodations to blind/visually impaired employees because its third-party benefits, leave, payroll, and training portals were inaccessible to screen-reader users. A senior QA engineer for blindness …
The State Bar of California v. ProctorU, Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
25STCV13089
Meazure represented 99.982% uptime, capacity for 25,000 simultaneous test-takers, and one-minute average customer support response, but its platform crashed and froze on February 2025 Bar Exam day. Amended complaint references …
McDowell v. ProctorU, Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
4:25-cv-04259-JST (originally 4:25-cv-04259-DMR)
Meazure represented that it could administer remote and in-person testing for the February 2025 California Bar Exam, collected fees including laptop fees, then forced applicants assigned to remote testing into …
Trisha A.M. v. ProctorU, Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning
4:25-cv-02197-JST
Plaintiff was directed to a Convention Center test site that did not function during February 2025 California Bar Exam; subjected to misdirection between Meazure customer support and the California Bar; …
In re: ProctorU California Bar Exam Litigation (lead: Perjanik et al. v. ProctorU, Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning)
4:25-cv-02095-JST (master)
Meazure Learning's exam platform repeatedly crashed during the February 2025 California Bar Exam, deleted essay responses, denied promised features (highlighter, copy-paste, spell check), and prevented thousands of test-takers from completing …
Riccio v. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc. et al.
3:24-cv-00955
Plaintiff experienced three software crashes during the remote Connecticut bar exam administered via ExamSoft; alleges ADA violation and seeks $2 million in damages.
Sauder Schelkopf February 2024 California Bar investigation re: Meazure Learning/ExamSoft (no filed case)
Investigation announced — case caption not yet publicly available
Investigation announced regarding February 2024 California Bar Exam failures (note: this is a separate Meazure-administered exam, distinct from the Feb 2025 actions).
Velazquez v. NCS Pearson, Inc. (originally Velazquez v. Pearson Education, Inc.)
2022-CH-00280
Pearson scanned palm vein-prints of test-takers at its Illinois test centers and used facial-comparison technology in its OnVUE remote-proctored exams without statutorily required written disclosures or consent. Class periods: palm …
Fowler, et al. v. PSI Services LLC and California Department of Insurance
21CV000126
PSI's online testing platform for CDI insurance licensing exams was inaccessible to blind/low-vision applicants who use screen reader software; defendants required burdensome medical documentation accommodations process not required of sighted …
In re Pearson plc (SEC Administrative Proceeding)
SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-20462
Pearson plc made misleading disclosures about the November 2018 AIMSweb 1.0 cyber intrusion that affected approximately 13,000 schools and exposed approximately 11.5 million student records (including names, dates of birth, …
Johnson v. Proctorio Incorporated
2:21-cv-00691-DLR
Proctorio sent bad-faith DMCA takedown notices to Twitter and GitHub to remove Johnson's posts that contained excerpts of Proctorio's software code and a video screenshot showing room-scan capture, in retaliation …
Bridges et al. v. Respondus, Inc.
1:21-cv-01785
Respondus Monitor collected facial-geometry and other biometric data through students' webcams during proctored exams without notice, written consent, or a public retention schedule; profited from biometric data; disclosed to schools …
Thakkar et al. v. ProctorU, Inc.
2:21-cv-02051 (C.D. Ill.); transferred to 2:21-cv-01565-NAD (N.D. Ala.)
ProctorU collected, stored, and used facial geometry and other biometric data without informed written consent, without a public retention/destruction policy, and failed to safeguard the data, leading to a July …