Proctorio AI Exam Proctoring Exhibited Racial Bias at UBC and Company Filed Lawsuit Against Employee Critic

In March 2020, COVID-19 forced the University of British Columbia to cancel in-person exams, and Proctorio's AI-powered proctoring software was rapidly deployed across the campus to over 50,000 students. The system monitored students through webcams, microphones, and screen recording during online assessments, using facial detection to verify student identity and behavioral analysis — including eye tracking, head movement monitoring, and room scanning — to flag potential cheating.

In April 2021, independent researcher Lucy Satheesan published findings that Proctorio's facial detection component used OpenCV, an open-source computer vision library. Satheesan analyzed the Chrome extension code, identified file names identical to OpenCV's facial detection functions, and tested the models against approximately 11,000 faces from the FairFaces dataset. The results showed a 57% failure rate for Black faces, compared to 41% for Middle Eastern faces and 33–40% for other groups (BCcampus, 2024). This meant racialized students were disproportionately flagged for "absence" during exams they were actively taking. Proctorio has publicly disputed claims of racial bias in its software. Students described the experience: "There's no reason I should have to collect all the light God has to offer, just for Proctorio to pretend my face is still undetectable."

In June 2020, CEO Mike Olsen (posting as u/artfulhacker on Reddit) publicly released a UBC student's private chat logs with Proctorio support in response to a complaint (The Ubyssey, 2020). In August 2020, Ian Linkletter, a learning technology specialist at UBC's Faculty of Education, tweeted links to Proctorio's own unlisted YouTube training videos showing features including Room Scan, Behaviour Flags, and Abnormal Head Movement detection. On September 1, 2020, Proctorio filed a lawsuit in BC Supreme Court alleging copyright infringement (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2021). The next day, Proctorio obtained an ex parte injunction — without notifying Linkletter — preventing him from sharing further materials. The Electronic Frontier Foundation characterized the suit as a "classic SLAPP" designed to silence criticism (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2021).

On March 17, 2021, UBC's Vancouver Senate voted 55–6 to restrict automated remote invigilation tools with algorithmic analysis, effective immediately (The Ubyssey, 2021). A delay amendment failed 14–46. Teaching and Learning Committee chair Joanne Fox stated that the racial discrimination concerns were "grave" enough to warrant immediate restriction. UBC's Okanagan Senate passed a matching motion on March 25. Several faculties — Arts, Science, Education, Dentistry, Forestry, and Land and Food Systems — discontinued Proctorio, while professional programs with external accreditation requirements retained limited exceptions.

The lawsuit continued for 1,899 days (The Ubyssey, 2025). Linkletter's anti-SLAPP application under BC's Protection of Public Participation Act was largely dismissed by Justice Warren Milman in March 2022; the BC Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in April 2023; the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case in 2024. A community defense fund raised $85,915 CAD, and Norton Rose Fulbright eventually provided pro bono representation. On November 12, 2025, Proctorio filed a Consent Dismissal Order ending the case (The Ubyssey, 2025). There was no monetary exchange (The Ubyssey, 2025). A narrowed injunction restricting access to Proctorio's Help Centre remains in place, though Linkletter stated this does not meaningfully impact his freedom of expression.

Similar complaints arose at Concordia University (where over 3,500 students signed a petition against Proctorio), the University of Toronto, and the University of Ottawa. McGill University declined to adopt proctoring software entirely, opting for open-book and take-home alternatives. A Canadian legal analysis found that online proctoring biometrics fail to meet Canada's legal threshold of consent for biometric data collection (Canadian Lawyer, 2022).