No major lawsuit currently names Honorlock as a defendant. The Honorlock lawsuit most often referenced online is Ogletree v. Cleveland State University, a federal case against one of Honorlock’s client universities that produced a landmark ruling on remote exam room scans in 2022 and was then vacated in late 2023 after the plaintiff died. A separate biometric privacy investigation into Honorlock is open but has not yet produced a filed class action, and the company’s own terms of service push students who want to sue into individual arbitration.
The Ogletree Room-Scan Case
Aaron Ogletree, a chemistry student at Cleveland State University (CSU), sued the school in 2021 after being required to scan his bedroom on webcam before taking a remotely proctored exam. He argued the scan was an unconstitutional search of his home under the Fourth Amendment. On August 22, 2022, U.S. District Judge J. Philip Calabrese of the Northern District of Ohio agreed and granted summary judgment for Ogletree.1NPR. Test Proctoring Room Scans Unconstitutional Cleveland State University
Judge Calabrese wrote that “room scans go where people otherwise would not, at least not without a warrant or an invitation,” and concluded that “Mr. Ogletree’s privacy interest in his home outweighs Cleveland State’s interests in scanning his room.” Applying a “special needs” balancing test, the court found students have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in their bedrooms, that CSU had not proved room scans were “uniquely effective” against cheating when less intrusive alternatives existed (lockdown browsers, AI plagiarism detection, redesigned assessments), and that the policy was applied inconsistently at the discretion of individual professors. Ogletree had received only two hours’ notice before the scan, which effectively removed any option to refuse without harming his grade.2FindLaw. Ogletree v. Cleveland State University3BBG Ohio. Ogletree v. Cleveland State University MSJ Decision
The ruling reached the Fourth Amendment at all only because CSU is a public institution, which satisfies the state-action requirement. That threshold would not be met against a private university or against Honorlock as a private company.4Future of Privacy Forum. Federal Court Deems University’s Use of Room Scans Within the Home Unconstitutional
Honorlock was not a party to the case. The company says it did not proctor the exam at issue, was not contacted about the litigation, and was linked to the matter only because Cleveland State listed it alongside other proctoring tools on a general FAQ page.5Honorlock. Room Scans FAQ CSU does contract with Honorlock and with Respondus, both of which offer room-scan functionality.6Higher Ed Dive. Test Proctoring Room Scans Violated College Student’s Privacy, Judge Rules
Why the Ruling Doesn’t Bind Anyone Now
Cleveland State appealed. Before the Sixth Circuit could decide the appeal on the merits, Aaron Ogletree died. His attorney filed a suggestion of death on February 22, 2023. The university then moved to vacate. On December 4, 2023, a three-judge panel dismissed the appeals as moot and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint.7CourtListener. Aaron Ogletree v. Cleveland State University Docket
The vacatur means Judge Calabrese’s opinion is no longer binding precedent. Its reasoning can still be cited as persuasive authority, but no federal appellate court has ruled on whether room scans violate the Fourth Amendment. A future student challenging a public university’s room-scan policy would be starting largely from scratch.
The Biometric Privacy Investigation
The law firm Ahdoot & Wolfson is investigating Honorlock for potential violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA requires companies to obtain informed written consent and provide specific disclosures before collecting, storing, or using biometric identifiers. The investigation focuses on Honorlock’s collection of facial geometry data and facial-recognition scans used to verify test-taker identity. The firm is seeking contact from affected students and parents with the aim of a potential class action, but no filed class action against Honorlock under BIPA has surfaced.8Ahdoot & Wolfson. Honorlock Facial Recognition Biometric Privacy Class Action Investigation
Honorlock’s defense rests on a distinction between facial detection and facial recognition. The company states its technology only detects whether a human face is present in the webcam feed and does not identify individuals, store facial elements, or match faces to any database.9Honorlock. Face Detection vs Face Recognition in Online Proctoring Its identity verification page states outright that “Honorlock does not use face recognition, fingerprints, voiceprints, or other biometric technologies to identify test takers.”10Honorlock. ID Verification and Authentication
Whether that distinction will hold up under BIPA has not been tested against Honorlock in court. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has argued that “facial detection is facial recognition.” Courts in Illinois have allowed at least one BIPA case against a different proctoring company, Respondus, to proceed past a motion to dismiss.11Legal Newsline. Resurrection University Can’t Fully Escape Class Action Over Face Scans During Online Exams
The EPIC Complaint
On December 9, 2020, EPIC filed a complaint with the D.C. Attorney General against five proctoring companies: Respondus, ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, and Honorlock. The complaint alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act and the FTC Act. It accused Honorlock and Proctorio specifically of misleading consumers by labeling their technology “facial detection” rather than “facial recognition,” and raised concerns about racial bias in facial recognition, discrimination against students with disabilities whose natural behaviors get flagged, and the invasiveness of home recording.12EPIC. EPIC Complaint In Re Online Test Proctoring Companies No public enforcement action by the D.C. Attorney General has been reported in response.13EPIC. In Re Online Test Proctoring Companies
What Honorlock’s Terms of Service Do to Your Right to Sue
If you have taken an exam through Honorlock, you have almost certainly agreed to terms that make suing very difficult. The exam-taker agreement contains a binding arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved through individual arbitration administered by JAMS, and a class action waiver that prohibits you from bringing or joining a class action or class arbitration.14Honorlock. Honorlock Exam Taker Terms of Use
Total liability for direct damages is capped at $100, and indirect or consequential damages are disclaimed entirely. You can opt out of the arbitration requirement by emailing Honorlock within 30 days of first accepting the terms, but the window is easy to miss during a timed exam. Any claim also has to be brought within one year, a shortened limitations period that can bar students who only later learn their data may have been mishandled.15Honorlock. Honorlock Exam Taker Terms of Service
State biometric statutes can sometimes override contractual waivers, which is one reason the BIPA investigation matters. But as a practical matter, a student thinking about legal action should assume the terms will be enforced unless a court or statute says otherwise.
What Honorlock Collects During an Exam
Any potential claim starts with what data the company holds about you. Honorlock’s own disclosures list: your name and course information, a copy of your government-issued ID, webcam video and audio, photos taken during the session, a scan of the testing environment, desktop activity, and a log of websites visited during the exam through a required Chrome extension. When the Honorlock application is installed, the software can also detect and force-quit prohibited programs.16Honorlock. Student Privacy
The company says it does not sell student data, does not scan other household devices, and restricts monitoring to the exam session. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest on Amazon Web Services, and the standard retention period is 365 days unless the institution requests an extension. Honorlock says the institution owns the data, not Honorlock, and undergoes annual SOC 2 Type 2 audits.17Honorlock. Student Privacy Statement
Honorlock also says its room-scan feature is optional and controlled by the instructor, that scans in its platform are never visible to other students (in contrast to the Zoom-based scan at issue in Ogletree), and that instructors can allow specific students to bypass a scan.18Honorlock. Test Room Scans Best Practices
State Laws That May Give You a Claim
Where federal constitutional arguments run into the state-action problem, state privacy statutes may not. Several are directly relevant to online proctoring:
- Illinois BIPA remains the strongest tool. It requires informed written consent for collecting biometric identifiers and gives individuals a private right of action, which has driven class litigation across industries.
- California’s Student Test Taker Privacy Protection Act (SB 1172), signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2022, bars proctoring companies from collecting, retaining, or sharing personal data beyond what is strictly necessary to administer an exam. Violations carry fines of $1,000 per incident.19CalMatters Digital Democracy. SB 1172 Student Test Taker Privacy Protection Act
- The Texas Data Privacy and Security Act imposes consent requirements for sensitive personal data, including biometrics, and grants opt-out rights for automated decision-making.
- Virginia, Colorado, and Connecticut all enacted consumer data privacy laws effective in 2023 that require explicit consent for biometric processing and data protection assessments for high-risk activities like AI profiling.20DSN Group. The Landscape of Online Proctoring and the Intersection of GDPR and US Laws
No enforcement action under any of these laws has been reported against Honorlock. If you believe your rights under one of them were violated, a lawyer practicing in your state is the right next step, and the 30-day arbitration opt-out and one-year claim window in Honorlock’s terms are worth raising at the first consultation.