Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Regulatory Action

Amsterdam student says Proctorio exam software repeatedly failed to detect her face; rights body found no discrimination but faulted complaint handling

During the 2020/21 academic year, when exams at VU Amsterdam were held online because of the pandemic, some exams required students to run Proctorio proctoring software, which according to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights used face-detection algorithms during a pre-exam webcam check to judge whether the student was in view. A master's student says the software had trouble recognising her, that she regularly received 'face not found' or 'room too dark' messages, lost time, shone a bright lamp into her face while taking exams, and experienced stress and a feeling of insecurity; she suspected the failures were linked to her dark skin and complained to the Institute in July 2022. In an interim ruling of 7 December 2022 the Institute found sufficient indications for a presumption of discrimination. In its final ruling of 17 October 2023 it found that the university had proved it had not discriminated against her by using Proctorio: on the exam where her setup took longer than average (31 March 2021), the webcam check failed three times and she passed within eight seconds after the helpdesk advised her to remove her glasses, a known Proctorio problem the Institute treated as unrelated to skin colour; a restart during that exam was very likely caused by an unstable internet connection; and it considered it plausible that she had no need to keep a lamp shining in her face for long periods. It found that the university had discriminated in handling her complaint, which took from 1 October 2021 to 11 May 2022 to be taken up. The university apologised that she had not felt heard.

AI system
Proctorio
Proctorio
Occurred
2020
Reported
15 July 2022
Event location
Netherlands
What the AI did
Made a decision about the person
Reported harm
Psychological Distress
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Education · Accessibility
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 4 sources
7 claims: 6 documented, 1 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Proctorio online proctoring software used for some VU Amsterdam exams in 2020/21; according to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights it used face-detection algorithms, at least during the pre-exam verification process, to judge whether a student was in view

Reported harm

The student says repeated face-detection failures at the exam webcam check cost her time, led her to shine a lamp into her face during exams and caused her stress and a feeling of insecurity. The Institute documented one exam where three failed checks delayed her start by about a minute against the average, but found she had no more problems than other students and that the problems were not linked to her skin colour.

Outcome

Resolved

Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens): interim ruling 2022-146 (7 December 2022) found a presumption of indirect discrimination on grounds of race; final ruling 2023-111 (17 October 2023) found no prohibited distinction in the use of Proctorio or in the absence of an external audit, and found prohibited distinction in the university's handling of her complaint. The university apologised and said it would review its complaint procedures and re-evaluate remote proctoring.

What remains unknown

  • How many of the student's eight Proctorio-monitored exams produced face-detection failures, and how long each took; the university's log data for four exams before February 2021 do not separate Proctorio's setup time.
  • Whether the face-detection model performed worse for the student because of her skin colour; Proctorio's audit was not submitted to the Institute.
  • Proctorio's own response to the student's account.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The Institute's ruling says Proctorio used face-detection algorithms in the pre-exam verification check to judge whether a student was in view, and documents that on 31 March 2021 the check failed the student three times and passed her within eight seconds once she removed her glasses. The student says the check repeatedly reported 'face not found' or 'room too dark', which cost her time and caused stress. The Institute found the failures were not linked to her skin colour and not more frequent than other students' failures, so the extent of the system's failures and their cause remain disputed.

7 claims: 6 documented, 1 reported. What the statuses mean

Documented In 2020/21 VU Amsterdam required students to run Proctorio proctoring software for some online exams; according to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights the software used face-detection algorithms, at least during the verification process, to judge whether a student was in view.

Causal attribution. The Institute's findings of fact about the software's use and function.

  • oordelen.mensenrechten.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Voor bepaalde tentamens was het verplicht dat studenten op hun computer de proctoringsoftware (‘antispieksoftware’) van Proctorio installeerden'; 'De software maakt, in ieder geval tijdens het verificatieproces, gebruik van gezichtsdetectiealgoritmes om te beoordelen of een student in beeld is.'
Reported The student says the software had trouble recognising her during the verification process, that she regularly received 'face not found' or 'room too dark' messages, lost a lot of time, shone a bright lamp into her face while taking exams, and that these events caused her much stress and a feeling of insecurity.

Causal attribution. The student's own account, recited in the ruling as her position and given in interviews; the Institute did not accept that the problems exceeded other students' or were linked to her skin colour (c5).

  • oordelen.mensenrechten.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'de software had moeite om haar tijdens het verificatieproces te herkennen. Zij kreeg regelmatig de melding ‘face not found’ of ‘room too dark’.'; 'Deze gebeurtenissen leverden haar veel stress en een gevoel van onveiligheid op.'
  • nos.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Het programma herkende haar gezicht niet en vroeg haar in "een goed belichte ruimte" te gaan zitten'; 'door met een lamp recht in haar gezicht te schijnen.'
  • at5.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Ze kreeg dan meldingen zoals ‘face not found’ of ‘room too dark’.'
Documented At an exam on 31 March 2021 the student's Proctorio setup took 3 minutes 27 seconds against an average of 2 minutes 22 seconds; after three attempts at the webcam check she was offered helpdesk chat, was advised to remove her glasses, and then passed the webcam check within eight seconds. The Institute described glasses causing webcam-check problems as a known Proctorio problem unrelated to her skin colour.

Causal attribution. Findings of the Institute from log data and a chat transcript submitted by the university.

  • oordelen.mensenrechten.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Enkel bij het tentamen op 31 maart 2021 ging de setup bij verzoekster langzamer dan gemiddeld; zij had 3 minuten en 27 seconden nodig, terwijl de studenten gemiddeld 2 minuten en 22 seconden nodig hadden.'; 'dat de helpdesk verzoekster heeft geadviseerd om haar bril af te zetten. Nadat verzoekster dit advies heeft opgevolgd, komt zij binnen 8 seconden door de webcamcheck.'; 'De mogelijkheid dat een bril problemen geeft bij de webcamcheck, is een bekend probleem bij Proctorio'
Documented In an interim ruling of 7 December 2022 the Institute found sufficient indications for a presumption that the university had discriminated against the student on grounds of her skin colour by using Proctorio, and gave the university the opportunity to rebut it.

Causal attribution. The Institute's interim ruling as recited in its final ruling and reported by AT5.

  • oordelen.mensenrechten.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Het College heeft in het tussenoordeel van 7 december 2022 (oordeel 2022-146) vastgesteld dat er voldoende aanwijzingen zijn voor het vermoeden dat de VU de student gediscrimineerd heeft op grond van haar huidskleur.'
  • at5.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'De universiteit krijgt tien weken de tijd om aan te tonen dat de software niet discrimineert.'
Documented In its final ruling of 17 October 2023 the Institute found that the university had proved it did not discriminate against the student by using Proctorio: she had no more login, verification or restart problems than other students, a restart during the 31 March 2021 exam was very likely caused by an unstable internet connection, and it was plausible that she had no need to keep a lamp shining in her face for long periods.

Causal attribution. The Institute's final findings; they dispute the student's account of the cause and extent of her problems.

  • oordelen.mensenrechten.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'De VU heeft kunnen aantonen dat de student tijdens haar tentamens niet meer problemen heeft ondervonden dan andere studenten.'; 'niet veroorzaakt kan zijn door de proctoringsoftware, maar – zeer waarschijnlijk – wel door een instabiele internetverbinding.'; 'acht aannemelijk dat er geen noodzaak was voor verzoekster om langdurig een lamp op hinderlijke wijze in haar gezicht te laten schijnen'
Documented The Institute found that the university had discriminated in handling the student's complaint: she first linked the software's poor functioning to her skin colour in a complaint of 1 October 2021, and it was 11 May 2022 before one of the bodies she was referred to took it up.

Causal attribution. The Institute's ruling on complaint handling.

  • oordelen.mensenrechten.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'verboden onderscheid op grond van ras gemaakt bij de klachtbehandeling.'; 'Uiteindelijk heeft het tot 11 mei 2022 geduurd voordat de klacht van de student door één van die instanties in behandeling genomen is.'
Documented After the ruling the university apologised that the student had not felt sufficiently heard and said it would review its complaint procedures and re-evaluate whether remote proctoring can be used responsibly.

Causal attribution. The university's own published statement.

  • vu.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'rekenen we het onszelf zeer aan dat de student zich onvoldoende gehoord heeft gevoeld in haar ervaring. Hiervoor bieden we onze excuses aan.'; 'Met de kennis van vandaag zullen wij opnieuw evalueren of, en zo ja hoe, het toetsen op afstand verantwoord kan worden ingezet.'

Sources

4 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch. Applies to s1, s2, s3, s4.

Event countries: Netherlands. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Netherlands.

The exams were VU Amsterdam's online exams, and the complaint was decided by the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights in Utrecht. The ruling redacts where the student lived and does not say where she sat the exams, so her country is left unknown.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-28: Published as an institution's use of an automated face-detection check on a student: the Institute's ruling documents that the check failed her three times on one exam, and she reports repeated failures, lost time and stress. The ruling rejected her discrimination claim and found that the university mishandled her complaint; both are recorded.

People described

A master's student at VU Amsterdam who took online exams monitored by Proctorio in 2020/21

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One student, the complainant, who used the software herself. The Racism and Technology Center's fear, reported by NOS, that thousands of students with dark skin had problems is not a count.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#proctorio#online-proctoring#face-detection#exam#university#netherlands#equality-body#complaint-handling

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Amsterdam student says Proctorio exam software repeatedly failed to detect her face; rights body found no discrimination but faulted complaint handling. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2020-amsterdam-university-student-says-proctorio-face-check-repeatedly-failed-to-detect-her-rights-body-finds-no-discrimination

BibTeX

@misc{2020_amsterdam_university_student_says_proctorio_face_check_repeatedly_failed_to_detect_her_rights_body_finds_no_discrimination,
  title = {Amsterdam student says Proctorio exam software repeatedly failed to detect her face; rights body found no discrimination but faulted complaint handling},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2020-amsterdam-university-student-says-proctorio-face-check-repeatedly-failed-to-detect-her-rights-body-finds-no-discrimination}
}

Related cases

Medium Turnitin AI-text detector

Adelphi accused Orion Newby of AI plagiarism after a detector flagged his paper; a Nassau County judge ordered the finding expunged

Orion Newby, an Adelphi University first-year student with language and auditory processing disabilities, received a zero in November 2024 on a World Civilizations paper after the professor suspected it was AI-generated and the university relied in part on AI-detection software; he was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop and his appeal was denied, leaving him one finding from suspension or expulsion. Newby — who had written the paper with 15-20 hours of tutor support through the university's own disability program — said the detectors flagged his citations, and two other detectors scored the paper as human. After the family sued, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled on 28 January 2026 that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered his record expunged. The family spent six figures on legal costs.

Low Turnitin AI-text detector (reported)

First-person forum account: a student in an AP Research course says their teacher reported that Turnitin's AI checker found their source annotations '100% AI' and said the checker never gives false accusations; the student says they wrote the work themselves and can show document history

In a public post to r/ApplyingToCollege early on 1 October 2026 (UTC), a student taking the Advanced Placement (AP) Research course writes that their teacher told them that day that their source annotations had been found to be '100% ai' by Turnitin. The student says they did not use AI. They say their document history shows them typing over the course of an hour and that some sentences closely follow notes they wrote for an earlier assignment. They also say they had faced no AI accusation in a research course with the same teacher the year before. By the student's account, the teacher said the matter would be discussed later and that Turnitin's AI checker feedback never ends up being a false accusation. The student says the accusation leaves them upset and unsure how to defend themselves. No grade or disciplinary outcome is reported. The account is uncorroborated, and one commenter doubted it.

Medium Grok

Den Bosch: 13-year-old made racist Grok videos of his teacher; the school expelled him and a court ordered his readmission

In March 2026 a 13-year-old pupil at a Den Bosch gymnasium used xAI's Grok to generate videos depicting a teacher of his in racist ways — picking cotton under a whip-holding slave driver with the text 'Hoooo.. ik werkte niet snel genoeg' and hashtags '#minderwaardig #zwart' plus her surname, and with a gorilla head — and shared them on TikTok. The school suspended and then expelled him. On 8 July 2026 the preliminary-relief judge of the Oost-Brabant district court ordered his immediate readmission because the expulsion was insufficiently substantiated, while telling the boy his acts were 'totally unacceptable and even criminal' and that he had damaged and really hurt his teacher. School leadership reported that teaching staff felt unsafe and experienced much unrest after the videos were discovered.

Low ZeroEyes gun detection

Florida middle school locked down and police sent after ZeroEyes AI gun detection flagged a student's clarinet as a possible gun, reports say

On 9 December 2025 a Seminole County, Florida, middle school went into a Code Red lockdown and police rushed to the campus after the ZeroEyes AI weapons detection system, whose alerts are checked by the company's human analysts before police are notified, flagged a student holding a clarinet as a possible gun. According to a police report reviewed by The Washington Post (as relayed by Ars Technica) and obtained by WKMG News 6, officers expected an armed person in camouflage holding a shouldered rifle; dispatch later told them the suspected rifle was likely a band instrument, and police found the student, who was dressed as a military film character for a themed dress-up day, among panicked students hiding in the band room. Officers questioned him and found no weapon in his backpack or instrument case (Oviedo Community News, February 2026). The student said he was unaware the way he held the clarinet could trigger the alert. ZeroEyes said it had not made an error, while also treating the alert as a true positive only until officers on the ground found no rifle and then classifying it as a false positive; the district said the system worked as intended; the principal asked parents to talk to their children about the dangers of pretending to have a weapon.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents