One Company, One Monopoly, One Job — And They Blew It

The California Bar Exam is the single most consequential professional test in the United States. California does not have reciprocity with other state bars, which means that every law school graduate who wants to practice law in California must pass this exam. There is no workaround. There is no shortcut. You fail, you cannot work as an attorney in California. The stakes, in human terms, are total.

For the February 2025 exam, the State Bar of California made a structural change. For the first time, the exam would allow remote participation. To make this possible, the State Bar contracted with ProctorU, Inc., doing business as Meazure Learning, a Delaware corporation headquartered at 7901 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 330, McLean, Virginia. Meazure became the exclusive vendor responsible for delivering and proctoring the exam. Every applicant who wanted to type their answers, rather than handwrite them, was required to use Meazure’s platform. Required. No alternative. No choice.

The complaint is blunt about what this meant in practice: applicants “did not have the choice of other remote proctoring software or the option to type the exam without using Meazure’s Platform.” Handwriting was technically an option, but the complaint notes that the vast majority of test-takers use a computer because it is faster and easier on a timed exam. Choosing to handwrite would have imposed a significant competitive disadvantage. In other words, paying Meazure’s fee was, for most of the 5,600 applicants, a practical necessity.

The timeline of failure that follows is a story about a company that had every conceivable advantage: months of advance notice, exact applicant counts available from the November 1, 2024 application deadline, a direct contractual relationship with the State Bar, mandatory pre-exam scheduling that let Meazure count seats and proctors to the exact number, and weeks of pre-exam mock testing that surfaced technical failures. Meazure had all of this. What it did not have, according to the complaint, was sufficient server infrastructure, a functioning platform, or the basic corporate honesty to tell applicants the truth.

The complaint alleges that Meazure and the State Bar fast-tracked this new format in part to save as much as $3.8 million annually. A cost-cutting exercise. A revenue optimization. And on the other end of that optimization were 5,600 people who had spent hundreds of hours studying, paid hundreds of dollars in fees to the State Bar, paid additional fees to Meazure, and in many cases traveled to testing locations or taken practice exams to familiarize themselves with the platform. They were not a line item. They were human beings on the verge of the most important professional moment of their lives.

Servers Down, Careers on the Line: What Actually Happened on February 25 and 26, 2025

The exam was scheduled across two days. Day one consisted of five one-hour essays and a ninety-minute performance test. Day two was 200 multiple-choice questions. A timed exam. Every minute lost to a software failure is a minute that cannot be reclaimed.

According to the complaint, Meazure’s platform had been showing warning signs for weeks. During the mandatory mock exam period held between January 12 and 23, 2025, applicants complained they were unable to complete the practice run, had to wait hours to attempt it, or were randomly ejected from the platform with no explanation. Site reservations were abruptly canceled. Applicants received conflicting information about rules and procedures. Some were assigned to test centers hours from their homes. The complaint cites reporting from Reuters and Above The Law documenting these “technical issues and communication lapses” that “distracted applicants from their studies and created confusion.”

On February 13, 2025, just ten days before the exam, the State Bar issued an apology to applicants and offered refunds to anyone willing to withdraw and retake the exam in July. The complaint characterizes this offer as “cold comfort” to applicants who had been studying for weeks and could not wait another five months to enter the profession. The delay would mean no California law license until November 2025 at the earliest.

On February 23, 2025, two days before the exam, the State Bar acknowledged it had received reports of platform issues affecting the ability to type in answer windows, use backspace and delete keys, and cut and paste text. The State Bar then relayed Meazure’s assurance that “these issues have been resolved.” The complaint is direct: “That representation was false, as the issues were not resolved.” Meanwhile, Meazure had disabled spellcheck entirely rather than repair it, having acknowledged it “was not functioning properly” and was causing additional problems. The promised feature was simply turned off.

Then came February 25. The platform crashed. And kept crashing. The complaint describes test-takers receiving error messages stating the software was “under heavy load (queue full)” and that “too many people are accessing this website at the same time.” This was not an unforeseen surge. Meazure knew the exact number of applicants. Applications had closed months earlier. The complaint argues this was a straightforward infrastructure failure: the platform had insufficient servers and server space to handle a load that was entirely predictable.

The specific failures documented in the complaint include: the platform freezing and shutting down randomly mid-exam; error messages displaying instead of exam questions; copy-paste functionality failing entirely, forcing test-takers to manually retype answers they had already drafted; saved answers disappearing with warnings that responses were not being preserved; inability to access the digital notepad, highlighter, timer, spell check, performance test resource packet, bookmark navigation, annotation tools, and tagging system. Every single feature Meazure had expressly promised was unavailable to a significant portion of the test-taking class.

What Money Cannot Measure: The Human Cost of the Meazure Collapse

There is a number in this case: the aggregate damages for the class exceed five million dollars. That figure comes from the complaint. It is real, and it matters. But money is a crude instrument for measuring what actually happened to the 5,600 people sitting in front of Meazure’s platform on February 25 and 26, 2025. The court will eventually price the breach. This section will not.

Consider what it takes to get to the California Bar Exam. Four years of undergraduate education. Three years of law school, typically carrying six figures of student loan debt. Hundreds of hours of bar exam preparation, often using commercial courses that can cost $3,000 or more on their own. The fees to the State Bar. The fees to Meazure. Travel to testing locations. The emotional and physical toll of sustained high-stakes studying. Then two days to prove all of it. Two days. That is the window these applicants had. And Meazure collapsed it.

Plaintiff Laura Perjanik took the exam remotely from her personal computer. On the first day, she logged in and began working on the three one-hour essays. The platform started crashing almost immediately. According to the complaint, Ms. Perjanik was unable to access the first essay until four hours after her scheduled start time because the platform was not functioning. Then, when she was finally inside the exam, the software continued to crash repeatedly. It took her six hours to complete a single written essay. She toggled back and forth between her online proctors and Meazure’s tech support, with each side directing her to the other. Nobody resolved the problem. According to the complaint, Ms. Perjanik was crying, in tears, because she could not finish anywhere near the required number of essays in the time allotted. The second day brought the same connectivity failures. She could not access the highlighter, notepad, copy-paste function, timer, spell check, or any of the promised tools. She was, in the complaint’s words, “prevented from completing the essay portion of the exam.”

Plaintiff Victoria Tulsidas was taking the exam in person at a Meazure-provided testing site, on a computer Meazure supplied. This matters. She was in Meazure’s physical space, on Meazure’s hardware, and the platform still failed. The software lagged when she typed. Copy-paste did not work. During her third essay, the platform froze entirely and she could not continue adding her response. The in-person proctor could not fix it. She was forced to swap out her laptop mid-examination, losing time she could not recover. After the lunch break, copy-paste was still broken, so Ms. Tulsidas was forced to memorize portions of exam questions she would otherwise have pasted into her answer box. On the second day, the platform crashed, causing a forty-minute delay before the exam could begin. At question 112, it crashed again. The complaint notes that because of these interruptions and the lost functionality, Ms. Tulsidas “missed some important issues in her answer.” Those missed issues may determine whether she passes or fails. That is not a technical inconvenience. That is a professional trajectory, altered.

Plaintiff Samuel McClain also tested in person on a Meazure computer. On day one, copy-paste was completely unavailable during the performance test. Around him, other applicants were audibly complaining to proctors about platform failures, disrupting his concentration as he tried to write. On day two, the platform refused to let him log in at all, starting his exam forty minutes late. At the 105-minute mark, his screen displayed a prompt informing him that none of his multiple-choice answers were being saved. The entire program then shut down. An hour later, the whole network rebooted. After the lunch break, the complaint reports that Meazure’s proctors yelled at test-takers. Not encouraged them. Not informed them. Yelled at them. Mr. McClain suffered stress and anxiety. The complaint says so directly.

Beyond the three named plaintiffs, the complaint includes eleven excerpted first-hand accounts from online forums and social media, presenting what amounts to a chorus of documented trauma. One test-taker wrote that the experience was “Maybe the worst experience of my entire life. Period.” They described leaving the exam “with tears running down my face walking back to my car. Legit traumatized, shaky, labored breathing, detached, emotions all over the place.” Another wrote that their exam lost connection to the servers “at least 20+ times,” with a timer that kept running through every freeze, forcing them to scramble to find their place when the connection briefly restored, “30 seconds to read the question before it would freeze again.” One person, pleading with their proctor for a response and receiving only the instruction to “hit refresh,” wrote that their “anxiety and panic were incredibly overwhelming.” Another received repeated “ANSWERS NOT SAVED” notifications and spent the remainder of the exam wondering whether any of their work had been captured at all. These are law school graduates, people who chose a demanding profession specifically because they are equipped to handle difficulty. The fact that they broke down in tears, developed physical symptoms of trauma, and described the experience as worse than any other in their lives is not weakness. It is a documented injury, and the complaint files it as one.

The State Bar’s offered remedy, the ability to retake the exam in July with fees waived, requires another full preparation cycle. That means another two to four months of intensive studying while deferring employment. It means delaying bar admission until November 2025 at the earliest. For graduates carrying student loan debt, that is months of lost attorney salary. For graduates who had already accepted job offers contingent on passing the bar, it may mean losing those positions entirely. The complaint acknowledges all of this, noting the retake offer was “inadequate because retaking the test in July would require another serious investment of time and money to prepare for the test, not to mention delaying the start of careers as California lawyers and the emotional distress of failing the February exam.” The offer was not a solution. It was a deferral of the consequences of Meazure’s failure onto the people who were harmed by it.

Straight From the Complaint: Every Damning Line on the Record

The following are verbatim quotations and directly cited passages from the class action complaint filed February 27, 2025, Case 3:25-cv-02095, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. These are the words of the legal record itself.

“Defendant Meazure had one job: to administer the February 2025 California Bar Examination (the ‘CA Bar Exam’ or ‘Exam’) to thousands of test-takers who were required to pay Meazure to use its software—the Meazure Exam Platform—during the Exam. But Meazure failed spectacularly in its task to administer the Exam because its Platform crashed and continually malfunctioned, disrupting the Exam. As a result of the total technical breakdown that Meazure caused, the Exam was a disaster for test-takers who were traumatized, who had their career ambitions delayed, and who paid Meazure a fee for a defunct Platform.”

— Complaint, Para. 1

“The State Bar and Meazure fast-tracked the new exam format, claiming that the new format would save as much as $3.8 million annually. Rather than carefully designing and releasing functioning software, Meazure rushed to deploy software that was not ready to accommodate the foreseeable number of test-takers who would use computers to take the February 2025 Exam.”

— Complaint, Para. 23

“Applicants who do not wish to take on the disadvantage of using handwriting, for the Exam, applicants were required to use Meazure’s remote proctoring software to complete the test. In other words, applicants taking the exam using a computer had no choice but to use Meazure’s Platform and to pay Meazure’s fee—as test takers were not given any options other than Meazure’s Platform to use to take the test on a computer.”

— Complaint, Para. 25

“Meazure’s testing software crashed because it had insufficient infrastructure and/or lack of servers and server space to process the foreseeable number of exam takers. Meazure failed to design, maintain, and/or improve the infrastructure of the exam software to sufficiently and adequately service Plaintiffs and Class Members who had no choice but to pay Meazure’s fee to take the Exam on a computer.”

— Complaint, Para. 8

“On February 23—two days before the exam—Meazure still hadn’t fixed its software. The State Bar acknowledged ‘receiving reports of issues in the Meazure Learning platform affecting the ability to type into the answer window, use backspace/delete, and cut and paste. Meazure has informed us that these issues have been resolved.’ That representation was false, as the issues were not resolved.”

— Complaint, Para. 40–41

“Meazure acknowledged further that the spellcheck functionality ‘was not functioning properly’ and was causing additional problems with the software. Rather than fix the problems, Meazure turned the promised spellcheck feature off.”

— Complaint, Para. 42

“Meazure knew of these ‘technical issues and communication lapses’ that ‘distracted applicants from their studies and created confusion.’ Yet Meazure failed to address the myriad technical issues that plagued the rollout of the exam.”

— Complaint, Para. 35–36

“On the first day of the test, shortly after Ms. Perjanik logged in for the test and began completing the three one-hour essays, Meazure’s software began to crash and malfunction. Ms. Perjanik was unable to access the first essay until four hours after her allotted start time because the Meazure Exam Platform was not functioning. Then, it took Ms. Perjanik six hours to complete one written essay because Meazure’s software repeatedly crashed. Ms. Perjanik contacted her online proctors, who told her to contact tech support. But Meazure’s tech support told her to contact the online proctors. Again and again, she toggled back and forth between the online proctors and tech support, without any resolution. Ms. Perjanik’s stress was overwhelming. She was crying, in tears because she had not been able to finish anywhere near the required essays within the allotted time due to the malfunctioning exam software.”

— Complaint, Para. 52–54

“During the second day of the exam, the Meazure Exam Platform did not let Mr. McClain login and caused him to start the exam 40 minutes late. After the lunch break, Meazure’s proctors yelled at test-takers. At the 105-minute mark, Mr. McClain’s computer displayed a prompt stating that none of his multiple choice answers were being saved and then the entire program shut down. An hour later, the whole network rebooted.”

— Complaint, Para. 76

“Meazure raked in cash from the over 5,600 applicants who sought to sit for the February 2025 exam as test takers using computer were required to pay Meazure a fee.”

— Complaint, Para. 33

“In failing to disclose that the Meazure Exam Platform would repeatedly crash and prevent applicants from accessing promised features, Meazure has knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts.”

— Complaint, Para. 121

“Meazure knew or reasonably should have known about the problems with the Meazure Learning Platform and should have warned Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Meazure was in a superior position to know the true facts related to the Meazure Learning Platform, and Plaintiffs and Class Members could not reasonably be expected to learn or discover the true facts in advance.”

— Complaint, Para. 132

“Plaintiffs had no basis to discover that the Meazure Exam Platform was defective because Meazure falsely represented that the ‘platform issues’ were ‘resolved.'”

— Complaint, Para. 127

“Meazure is now offering Plaintiffs and the Class Members the ability to retake the exam at a later date but there is no guarantee that the Meazure Learning Platform will not suffer from the same defects and problems at that time.”

— Complaint, Para. 135

“Today felt like a bear attack. My exam lost connection to the servers at least 20+ times. My screen would freeze, my answers would not save, my timer would continue to run. I’m fearful that my answers did not upload properly. I kept messaging my proctor, but it was utter chaos for what felt like an unbearable amount of time. When the exam would reconnect, I had only 30 seconds to read the question before it would freeze again. When it came back, I’d scramble to find my place and try to read or answer the question. This vicious cycle continued, making the experience truly miserable. I don’t believe these conditions accurately reflected my knowledge of the material.”

— Test-taker account cited in Complaint, Para. 47(j)

“I’ve taken 3 bar exams now. This wasn’t just the worst bar exam experience. Maybe the worst experience of my entire life. Period. Instead of feeling relief or joy after finishing that Guantánamo gauntlet I found myself with tears running down my face walking back to my car. Legit traumatized, shaky, labored breathing, detached, emotions all over the place…IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO OFFER RETAKES. IT IS HEINOUS TO TAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM US AND PUT US THRU WHAT JUST HAPPENED.”

— Test-taker account cited in Complaint, Para. 47(g)

“This was an utterly botched exam that fails every standard of professionalism—A) the legal profession, B) the State of California, and C) literally any exam administration on the planet. High school tests get handled better than this mess. We all deserve a refund, pass or fail, because this fiasco is basically a f***ing breach of contract, AT MINIMUM. This is absolutely not what we paid for.”

— Test-taker account cited in Complaint, Para. 47(k)

“Meazure expressly warranted that Class Members could ‘tak[e] an exam on the Meazure Exam Platform.’ Meazure also expressly warranted that the Meazure Exam Platform would include, for the essay component and multiple choice questions, ‘a single-color highlighter, digital notepad, timer, spell check, copy-and-paste functionality (shortcuts such as Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V will be available), strikethrough functionality… Text from the question stem or fact pattern can be copied and pasted into the response field or the digital notepad. Text written in the digital notepad can also be copied and pasted into the response field.'”

— Complaint, Para. 99

“Meazure engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the CLRA by the practices described above, and by knowingly and intentionally concealing from Plaintiffs and Class Members that the Meazure Exam Platform was not functional. These acts and practices violate, at a minimum, the following sections of the CLRA: (a)(5) Representing that goods or services have sponsorships, characteristics, uses, benefits or quantities which they do not have… (a)(7) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade… if they are of another; and (a)(9) Advertising goods and services with the intent not to sell them as advertised.”

— Complaint, Para. 118

perjanik-et-al-v-proctoru-incDownload

Explore by category

01

Antitrust

Monopolies and anti-competition tactics used to crush rivals.

View Cases →

02

Product Safety Violations

When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.

View Cases →

03

Environmental Violations

Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.

View Cases →

04

Labor Exploitation

Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.

View Cases →

05

Data Breaches & Privacy

Misuse and mishandling of personal information.

View Cases →

06

Financial Fraud & Corruption

Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.

View Cases →

07

Intellectual Property

IP theft that punishes originality and rewards copying.

View Cases →

08

Misleading Marketing

False claims that waste money and bury critical safety info.

View Cases →

Post Views: 187

Related posts:

A tiny fine for the unauthorized transport of plutonium-239 | International Isotopes, Inc. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts denied her asthma coverage. Then she died. Isle of Palms Pest Control Accused of Secretly Switching Services, Leading to Termite-Infested Home. Disney’s Closed Door: How a Hidden Booking Policy Punishes Musical Artists