The online testing vendor behind California’s troubled February 2025 bar exam has asked a federal judge to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit brought by a group of frustrated test-takers. The company, Meazure Learning, Inc.—formerly known as ProctorU—is facing mounting legal pressure over a string of technical issues that marred the state’s first hybrid-format bar exam earlier this year.
A Controversial Testing Rollout
California’s February bar exam was historic—it marked the first time the state adopted a hybrid testing model that combined in-person and remote elements. The California State Bar, aiming to modernize the process and reduce costs, introduced the system after deciding to depart from the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ format. The Bar projected that this transition could save up to $3.8 million annually.
However, what was meant to be an efficient, cost-effective innovation quickly turned into a logistical nightmare. Examinees reported widespread system malfunctions during the two-day exam period. Some candidates were unable to log in to the testing platform altogether, while others faced crashes, significant time delays, and poor remote proctoring. Complaints also surfaced regarding a malfunctioning “copy and paste” tool, inadequate security measures, and proctors causing distractions during the online exam.
The resulting chaos prompted multiple lawsuits from examinees, who claim their exam experiences were so severely disrupted that their performance—and, ultimately, their legal careers—were jeopardized.
Consolidated Class Action Claims
In the months following the exam, three separate lawsuits were filed against Meazure Learning by affected candidates. Those actions were consolidated into a single class action in June 2025. The plaintiffs accuse Meazure of failing to deliver a secure, functional, and fair exam experience, asserting claims under California’s consumer protection statutes, as well as for negligent infliction of emotional distress and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, Meazure “launched an untested and unstable platform” without ensuring it could handle the volume and technical demands of a statewide professional licensing examination. Plaintiffs allege the company’s negligence not only disrupted the testing process but caused significant emotional harm, citing weeks of anxiety, uncertainty, and lost career opportunities.
Their lawyers—Katherine Aizpuru of Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Joseph Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf LLC—have accused Meazure of cutting corners and prioritizing profit over reliability. They argue the testing vendor “failed to meet the most basic standards of competence” for a high-stakes examination system.
Meazure’s Motion to Dismiss
Meazure Learning has denied wrongdoing and is now urging the court to dismiss the case in its entirety. In its motion, the company contends that the plaintiffs’ claims are legally deficient for several reasons. Primarily, Meazure argues that it had no direct contractual relationship with the test-takers—only with the State Bar of California, which hired the company under a $4.1 million contract in September 2024.
The company maintains that because the examinees paid their exam fees to the State Bar—not to Meazure—it cannot be held liable under California’s consumer protection laws. In essence, Meazure asserts that the plaintiffs were not its “customers” and therefore lack standing to sue for breach of contract or consumer fraud.
Moreover, Meazure argues that its testing software does not constitute a “good or service” as defined under consumer law, as it is a one-time-use digital platform designed for controlled access by the Bar. The company insists it acted within the scope of its agreement and provided the State Bar with the technology and resources requested under contract.
Bar’s Separate Lawsuit
Complicating matters further, the State Bar of California has also sued Meazure Learning, alleging that the company’s system failures breached their contract and damaged the credibility of the bar examination process. Meazure has likewise filed a motion to dismiss that suit, arguing that the Bar’s claims are inconsistent with the agreed-upon terms and limitations of liability set forth in their contract.
The Bar’s complaint underscores the tension between innovation and reliability in legal licensing exams. As the first major testing overhaul in years, the hybrid bar exam was meant to demonstrate that technology could make the licensing process more accessible and efficient. Instead, it has reignited debates over whether remote testing is appropriate for such high-stakes professional qualifications.
Plaintiffs Push Back
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have dismissed Meazure’s motion as a stall tactic, accusing the company of trying to evade responsibility. “Rather than owning up to its failures,” said attorney Aizpuru, “Meazure is using procedural arguments to delay justice for examinees whose futures were impacted by its negligence.” They maintain that the emotional, financial, and professional damage their clients suffered is both real and compensable under California law.
The plaintiffs are seeking restitution, damages, and a judicial declaration that Meazure’s conduct violated state consumer protection and negligence standards. Their case could set an important precedent for future legal actions involving technology vendors contracted for professional licensing exams.
Broader Implications
The controversy surrounding Meazure Learning underscores the growing reliance on technology in high-stakes testing—and the risks that come with it. As more professional exams move toward hybrid or remote models, the California bar exam debacle serves as a cautionary tale for regulators, vendors, and candidates alike.
Legal experts note that while innovation can improve access and reduce administrative costs, any failure in execution can have career-altering consequences for test-takers. The outcome of this case could influence how states structure their future testing contracts and the accountability standards imposed on third-party vendors.
For now, Meazure Learning continues to defend its track record, emphasizing that it has successfully administered millions of secure exams worldwide. But for hundreds of California examinees, the February 2025 exam remains a costly and stressful experience they hope the courts will soon vindicate.
For more updates on major legal disputes, law firm developments, and attorney career trends, visit LawCrossing — your top source for exclusive legal job listings and industry insights.
See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile
