Teacher shortages are a growing problem. While universities may have less difficulty securing professors than K-12 schools do teachers, the steady move towards remote proctoring services makes sense from a sheer numbers perspective. Yet, whenever a school implements an AI-assisted remote proctoring service, it must be aware of these technologies’ shortcomings.

SMOWL is one such technology. There are several versions of SMOWL, including those that rely on humans to monitor a test-taker, but artificial intelligence is an integral feature of the platform. Like many similar platforms, the AI serves to identify “abnormal” behaviors by the test-taker, which is the crux of several problems that we will examine.

If you or your student is accused of cheating or engaging in suspicious behavior while taking a test that is monitored by an AI-enabled service like SMOWL, there is no time to delay. Universities tend to initiate disciplinary proceedings quickly, and the result of those proceedings can be devastating for the student.

Call the LLF National Law Firm today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online so we can start fighting for the accused student’s rights now.

How SMOWL and Other AI-Powered Proctoring Services Get It Wrong

SMOWL adheres to a common premise that many tech companies use to earn schools’ business, often under the guise of providing a more affordable, effective alternative to human proctors. The program monitors the test-taker with cameras and relies on artificial intelligence systems to identify “abnormal behavior” that may indicate cheating. Some of the well-documented problems with these AI-led proctoring services are:

  • Misinterpretation of health events and symptoms: One law school graduate sat for the bar exam while pregnant. Her most immediate concern while contractions set in was whether the AI proctor would flag her as cheating if she got up during the test. This case suggests that the average test-taker is aware that AI proctors often lack the nuanced perception and empathy that human proctors typically exhibit.
  • Classification of “quirks” is an indicator of cheating: Most AI proctors identify cheating based on broad, rigid criteria. For instance, an AI proctor might be trained to flag “a test taker talking” as suspicious activity. For this reason, these proctoring services are known to trigger innocuous behavior, like a test-taker mumbling the test questions aloud, as “suspicious.” A human proctor would likely recognize such activity as a subconscious quirk common to many test-takers.
  • Flagging factors that are beyond the test-taker’s control: An AI proctor is likely to flag “other people in the testing area” as one indicator of potential cheating. If a single parent is taking a test at home and their child bursts into the room, the average AI platform would not be able to discern between such an unavoidable event and intentional cheating.
  • A general lack of understanding of humans’ eccentricities and unique characteristics: Put simply, AI is not human. While it is being designed and trained to act with as much human capacity as possible, the differences between human perception and machine perception remain glaring. This lack of subtlety is a critical issue when AI is monitoring test-takers for “abnormal” behavior, sometimes over a multi-hour period.
  • Test-takers are affected by the knowledge that AI proctors are hyper-sensitive: When test-takers know that a human is proctoring them, they may be confident that the human proctor will not judge them excessively harshly or inaccurately. Knowing the quick trigger that AI has, test-takers may now perform poorly simply because they’re preoccupied with not triggering the AI proctor’s suspicions. One study suggests that anxiety about using AI proctoring services is a common concern.

There have also been widespread concerns about AI technology accurately identifying facial characteristics across different ethnicities. Others have been vocal about privacy concerns, given that many AI proctoring services gain complete (or near-total) control of the test-taker’s computer.

School Authorities Must Keep AI Proctoring Services in Check. They Often Fail to Do So.

Even AI’s most vocal proponents recognize that, at least for now, AI proctoring services are not a self-contained solution. These services rely on humans to:

  • In some cases, monitor the student alongside the AI (for instance, SMOWL has a feature where a human watches actively to detect the algorithm’s irregularities)
  • Evaluate each flagged event, determining if the student was, in fact, displaying suspicious behavior
  • Tweak the algorithm to reduce preventable false flags

This technology is imperfect and tends towards being overreactive. Humans are the safety net that prevents AI’s false flags from cratering a student’s reputation.

We can also draw conclusions from SMOWL’s unique offerings, like SMOWL 360. When a school purchases this service, the SMOWL team places at least one additional camera in the test-taking room, presumably to further reduce the likelihood that a student would use cheat sheets, communicate with someone in the room, or engage in other suspicious behavior that the webcam might not capture.

Think about that. The fact that SMOWL offers a premium option suggests that its core offering, which relies solely on a webcam, is insufficient as a proctoring tool. While we are suggesting that human proctors are perfect, we should recognize that AI-powered proctoring is undeniably flawed, arguably to a critical degree.

How the LLF National Law Firm Helps Students Accused of Academic Dishonesty By Platforms Like SMOWL

The LLF National Law Firm is in a unique position to help students falsely identified by AI technology as cheaters, or at least suspicious. As soon as you or your student is accused by an AI proctoring service of acting suspiciously, call our Student Defense Team because:

  • Student defense is what we do, and what we have done for many years
  • We have been at the forefront of AI’s rollout in educational settings, and have seen firsthand how the technology’s flaws can lead to false flags and other adverse outcomes.
  • Our attorneys are comfortable negotiating directly with universities and their general counsel, which can lead us directly to the resolution you deserve
  • We provide comprehensive defense services, from preparing you for whatever is to come, to handling communications on your behalf, and perhaps even taking legal action if your circumstances require it

Protection and advocacy cannot wait. Call the LLF National Law Firm today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online. We are always available to help, as we understand that student defense issues do not conform to a nine-to-five schedule.

Artificial Intelligence On Campus

Tell About Your Case

Special Education Oversight, Office of Civil Rights Leave DOE; Critics on Both Sides Weigh In

In a move designed to “peel back the layers of federal bureaucracy,” as Education Secretary Linda McMahon puts it, the Trump administration is relocating oversight of programs for special education and civil rights enforcement: Special education programs administration is moving from the Department of Education (DOE) to Health and Human […]

Is “Unprofessionalism” a Pretext for Disability Discrimination in Medical School?

A lawsuit filed in Chicago by a dismissed fourth-year medical student alleges disability discrimination and a failure to provide reasonable accommodations. This case highlights the concerning trend of using allegations of unprofessionalism to discipline medical students. The student involved had been taking medication for a medical condition and sent an […]

Your Right to Your Transcript: Can Your School Legally Withhold It?

If you have just celebrated your high school or college graduation, you are already planning for what comes next. If you’re trying to continue on to college or graduate school, you need to complete all your school applications and assemble your credentials. And if you’re applying for a job, you […]

AI Changed the Cheating Game. Princeton Just Changed the Rules.

For 133 years, Princeton University operated on a simple premise: students could be trusted to police themselves during exams. That era is over. In May 2026, Princeton’s faculty voted to require instructors to proctor all in-person exams, fundamentally reshaping one of the most storied honor codes in American higher education. […]