By: Gor Bagumyan
While many still believe nothing beats pen and paper, modern-day schooling has quickly shifted online. After the COVID-19 pandemic, virtually all standardized test-taking has also moved to online platforms. With some of the most high-stakes exams, such as the MCAT, LSAT, and even Bar Exams, being offered exclusively online for some or all of their portions, the inner workings of these online platforms continue to present challenges on test day. Recently, ProctorU, Inc., better known as Meazure Learning, has come under fire for its alleged failures in administering the February 2025 California Bar Exam. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Meazure’s system failures severely disrupted test-takers’ experience, raising important questions about the reliability of online exam platforms. However, this case is not an isolated incident.
In recent years, similar lawsuits have been filed against major testing organizations, including College Board and ExamSoft. In 2020, a class-action lawsuit was brought against College Board for failures in administering the remote AP Exams, leaving thousands of students unable to submit their responses. Rather than finding a solution to directly address these technical difficulties, College Board allegedly directed students to simply retake the tests at a later date. Along with the alleged technical failures, concerns were raised in the complaint about access to the technology and optimal test-taking conditions due to various environments students around the country were in. Alleging breach of contract and negligence violations for failing to adequately provide an operational test-taking platform, the complaint against College Board is not the only instance of significant legal action in response to such widespread testing failure.
Likewise, ExamSoft faced legal scrutiny after software crashes disrupted the 2020 and 2021 Bar Exams, further raising concerns about the reliability of online testing platforms. In Ricco v. ExamSoft, the plaintiff alleged that continued system crashes during the Bar Exam in July of 2021 deprived her of the added testing time she was entitled to for disability accommodations. ExamSoft has recently moved to dismiss the case, arguing it had no direct contractual relationship with the test takers. As the plaintiffs continue to defend their claims against ExamSoft, the consistent pattern of failures across different platforms suggests a broader issue within the online testing industry—one that calls for an urgent need for stricter accountability in online exam administration.
The lawsuit against Meazure Learning, Perjanik v. ProctorU, Inc., argues that the company failed to provide a stable and functional exam platform, causing severe stress and potential career setbacks for test-takers. Plaintiffs claim that they experienced system crashes, frozen screens, and abrupt logouts, all of which interfered with their ability to complete the Bar Exam. The complaint further alleges that Meazure failed to provide adequate technical support during the exam, leaving test-takers without recourse as they struggled with the platform’s malfunctions. Some candidates reported being forced to restart their tests multiple times, while others were unable to complete their exams at all, putting their future legal careers in jeopardy due to the stringent time constraints of the exam.
Beyond the logistical failures, the lawsuit raises important legal questions about liability in the online testing space. Should companies administering high-stakes exams be held to stricter technical standards? If a candidate is prevented from completing an exam due to a platform’s failure, should they be entitled to compensation or an automatic retest? These questions are critical, especially as online testing becomes the new norm for standardized exams. Given the immense pressure on test-takers and high stakes at play, ensuring that exam platforms function properly is not just a matter of convenience but a necessity for maintaining fairness and integrity in standardized testing.
Another major concern is the lack of transparency from online testing companies regarding their system capabilities and failure protocols. In many cases, test-takers sign agreements that limit the liability of the exam provider or force arbitration, making it difficult for them to seek recourse when technical issues arise. This raises further concerns about whether these companies are taking enough responsibility for the technology they provide. If courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it will set a precedent requiring stricter accountability and technological guarantees from online testing platforms. Conversely, if Meazure Learning successfully defends itself, it signals to other testing companies that minimal obligations are sufficient, leaving test-takers vulnerable to future technical mishaps.
Ultimately, the Meazure lawsuit underscores the growing pains of transitioning from traditional paper-based exams to digital platforms. While technology has the potential to revolutionize standardized testing, the legal battles surrounding online exams suggest that testing companies must do more to ensure reliability and fairness. The outcome of this case will influence the future of digital testing, determining whether test-takers can expect greater protections—or if they must continue navigating an unpredictable online exam landscape on their own. As we look ahead, it is clear that online testing is here to stay. However, with increased reliance on digital platforms comes the responsibility to ensure that they function effectively and fairly. The courts may provide some answers in the coming months, but in the meantime, test-takers and legal experts alike will be watching closely to see how this case unfolds and what it means for the future of high-stakes standardized testing.
Student Bio: Gor Bagumyan is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School and a staff member for the Journal of High Technology Law. Gor received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics, with minors in Political Science and Business Management from Clark University in 2023.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
