Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Internal Action

Lund University student who denies cheating is suspended for six weeks after the disciplinary board judges her fast-written exam answers AI-made, papers report

A student at Lund University wrote close to 1,500 words in six minutes during an exam in May, while other students took around two hours, according to Aftonbladet's relay, dated 28 September 2026, of a Sydsvenskan report. The teacher's report to the university said a writing speed of around 300 words a minute is not realistic for independently produced answers. The student denies cheating: she says she had technical problems, believed the exam would not be graded and wrote only 20 to 50 words per question. The university's disciplinary board sided with the teacher, judged that she had used AI and suspended her from her studies for six weeks. The report does not name an AI tool or describe any detection tool.

AI system
Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
28 September 2026
Event location
Sweden
What the AI did
Relation unknown
Reported harm
Educational Harm
Whose AI use
AI role unknown
Setting
Education
Evidence
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution supported · 1 source
4 claims: 4 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: No AI system is identified. The disciplinary board judged from the teacher's report on writing speed and answer length and quality that the exam text must have been written with AI; the student denies using it

What Happened

The exam. During an exam in May, a Lund University student submitted close to 1,500 words after six minutes; other students sat for around two hours, Aftonbladet reports, citing Sydsvenskan. The year of the exam is not stated; Aftonbladet's relay is dated 28 September 2026.

The report and the denial. The teacher's report said the answers ran to about 300 words per question at a high linguistic level and that a writing speed of around 300 words a minute is not realistic for independent, coherent and relevant answers. The student denies cheating. She says she had technical problems and believed the exam would not be assessed, and that she wrote only 20 to 50 words per question.

The decision. The university's disciplinary board sided with the teacher, judged that she had used AI and suspended her from her studies for six weeks. No AI tool or detection software is named, and the board's own decision was not inspected.

Reported harm

According to the reports, the student was suspended from her studies for six weeks after the disciplinary board judged, from the speed and quality of her written answers, that she had used AI, which she denies.

How Harm Occurred

A teacher reported a student whose exam text was written implausibly fast; the disciplinary board judged that the text was AI-written, which she denies, and suspended her for six weeks.

Outcome

Unknown

Lund University's disciplinary board judged that the student had used AI and suspended her from her studies for six weeks, according to Aftonbladet's report of 28 September 2026 relaying Sydsvenskan. Whether she appealed to the administrative court is not reported.

What remains unknown

  • Whether the student used AI, and the year of the exam.
  • The date of the board's decision and whether she appealed.
  • What Sydsvenskan's full article adds; it could not be read.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: suspected. The harm is the university's response to suspected AI use: the disciplinary board judged from the teacher's report on the speed, length and quality of the exam answers that the student had used AI, and suspended her for six weeks. She denies it, and no AI output or tool is described, so the relation is recorded as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.

4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported During an exam in May the student submitted close to 1,500 words after six minutes, while other students sat for around two hours.

Causal attribution. Sydsvenskan's account as relayed by Aftonbladet; the exam record was not inspected.

  • aftonbladet.se(opens in new tab) supports · Swedish
    'hann skriva närmare 1 500 ord på bara sex minuter under en tenta i maj, rapporterar Sydsvenskan. Andra studenter satt i runt två timmar.'
Reported The teacher's report said a writing speed of around 300 words a minute is not realistic for independently produced, coherent exam answers.

Causal attribution. The teacher's written report as quoted by Sydsvenskan through Aftonbladet.

  • aftonbladet.se(opens in new tab) supports · Swedish
    'En skrivhastighet på omkring 300 ord per minut är inte realistisk vid självständig produktion av sammanhängande, ämnesrelevanta och välformulerade tentamenssvar'
Reported The student denies cheating, saying she had technical problems, believed the exam would not be assessed and wrote only 20 to 50 words per question.

Causal attribution. The student's own explanation; contrary evidence to the board's judgment, not itself established.

  • aftonbladet.se(opens in new tab) supports · Swedish
    'Studenten nekar fusk. Hon uppger att hon hade tekniska problem och trodde att tentan inte skulle bedömas.'; 'Hon hävdar också att hon bara skrev 20–50 ord per fråga.'
Reported The university's disciplinary board sided with the teacher, judged that the student had used AI and suspended her from her studies for six weeks.

Causal attribution. The board's decision as reported; the decision was not inspected.

  • aftonbladet.se(opens in new tab) supports · Swedish
    'Universitetets disciplinnämnd går på lärarens linje och bedömer att studenten använt AI. Straffet blir sex veckors avstängning från studierna.'

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in full in the original Swedish (HTML body and stripped text). Aftonbladet states that its text was produced with the help of AI and fact-checked and edited by its editor or reporter, and that it relays Sydsvenskan, whose own article could not be read (HTTP 403). Passages are quoted in Swedish; the English renderings are translations by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator. Applies to s1.

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

The exam and the disciplinary decision took place at Lund University in Sweden, as the report states. The student's own country is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-23: Published as a concrete sanction for alleged AI use that the student denies: a six-week suspension resting on the board's judgment that fast-written exam answers were AI-made. The facts rest on one chain, Sydsvenskan's report as relayed by Aftonbladet.

People described

A Lund University student, not named in the reports

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person: the suspended student. She denies AI use, so she is counted outside own use.

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

Tags

#academic-integrity#suspected-ai-use#student-suspension#university#sweden#denied

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Lund University student who denies cheating is suspended for six weeks after the disciplinary board judges her fast-written exam answers AI-made, papers report. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-lund-university-student-who-denies-cheating-suspended-after-board-judges-fast-written-exam-answers-ai-made

BibTeX

@misc{2026_lund_university_student_who_denies_cheating_suspended_after_board_judges_fast_written_exam_answers_ai_made,
  title = {Lund University student who denies cheating is suspended for six weeks after the disciplinary board judges her fast-written exam answers AI-made, papers report},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-lund-university-student-who-denies-cheating-suspended-after-board-judges-fast-written-exam-answers-ai-made}
}

Related cases

Low Unidentified AI writing tool

Luleå university board suspends two students for six weeks over unauthorised AI use whose submitted work cited invented sources, local paper reports

The disciplinary board of Luleå University of Technology (LTU) in northern Sweden decided six disciplinary cases and suspended five students from teaching for six weeks, from 14 September to 25 October 2026, Norrbottens-Kuriren reported on 21 September 2026. In two of the cases, according to the newspaper, the matter was unauthorised use of AI in which the submitted work contained invented source references, among them a reference to a book that does not exist. The other suspensions concerned plagiarism of a classmate's lab report and unauthorised notes at an exam; a sixth student received a warning. The report does not name the AI tool, the courses or the students and quotes neither the students nor the university.

Medium Unidentified AI writing tool

Leiden law student's thesis invalidated and exams barred over references he says an AI tool distorted or invented; Council of State annuls fraud sanction

A law student at Leiden University used a generative AI tool to spell-check his bachelor thesis and to check and order its reference list. Seven of the thesis's footnote references (one of them appearing twice, out of 36 footnotes with references) were wrong in the final version; according to his explanation, the tool had distorted some of them, for example with wrong years or author initials, and invented others. On 29 January 2026 the faculty's exam board declared the thesis invalid and excluded him until 28 January 2027 from the thesis track and every exam in the faculty's programmes, reasoning that the fictitious references indicated unauthorised use of generative AI and therefore fraud. The university's appeals board for examinations found in March 2026 that he had plausibly shown he used generative AI to prepare his reference list, which it called a permitted use, but held him responsible for the non-existent sources; the exam board then re-imposed the invalidation with an exclusion until 29 July 2026, and the appeals board upheld that in July. On 14 October 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Raad van State) found his explanation plausible, held that no more than carelessness had been shown, and annulled the sanction; the thesis must now be graded, and the examiner may take the incorrect references into account in the grade.

Low Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)

Dutch Council of State upholds Maastricht University fraud sanction on a law student whose assignment cited non-existent sources the university attributed to AI

On 11 December 2025 an examination board at Maastricht University found that a European Law School student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment whose purpose was to find and correctly cite legal sources. The board said three of the four sources contained wrong journals, years, titles and page numbers, that the sources did not exist, and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI; it concluded the student had made unauthorised use of AI. The sanction was a formal warning in the student's file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit. The student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool had been used, that she was never asked whether she had used AI, and that the errors came from completing the work in a hurry from memory and notes with a poor internet connection. The university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal on 5 March 2026, and on 12 August 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State dismissed her further appeal and her claim for damages for reputational and psychological harm.

Low Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)

St Andrews medical student says a marker's suspicion of AI use led to an upheld misconduct finding, overturned at a second hearing after appeal

The BBC reported on 10 August 2026 that a University of St Andrews medical student received an academic misconduct alert in August of the previous year saying his dissertation had been flagged as AI-generated. According to the university, the dissertation was assessed by two human markers, one of whom raised concerns about possible AI use; the marker's notes, seen by the BBC, cite a polished, uniform tone, flawless grammar, formulaic paragraph structure and frequent dashes. The student says the link to his virtual hearing arrived five minutes after the start time. A week after the hearing the allegations were upheld, which capped his mark at a bare pass. The university accepted his appeal because of the late link, and at a second hearing in mid-November it did not uphold the allegations. He later received his full mark. The student says he was consumed by worries throughout that semester, that he deferred his exams and that his graduation was delayed until December. The university says the appeal succeeded solely on a procedural issue. The report describes no AI-detection tool, and the student says he did not use AI.

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