{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-28T06:30:14.246Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"proctorio","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2020-amsterdam-university-student-says-proctorio-face-check-repeatedly-failed-to-detect-her-rights-body-finds-no-discrimination","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Ze kreeg dan meldingen zoals ‘face not found’ of ‘room too dark’.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'De universiteit krijgt tien weken de tijd om aan te tonen dat de software niet discrimineert.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"student reports stress, lost time and a lamp in her face after Proctorio's face check repeatedly failed to detect her","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://oordelen.mensenrechten.nl/oordeel/2023-111","kind":"official_decision","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch.","independence_group":"crm-ruling-2023-111"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://nos.nl/artikel/2436872-studente-dient-klacht-in-over-discriminerende-antispieksoftware","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch.","independence_group":"student-interview-volkskrant-2022"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/218108/mensenrechtencollege-geeft-vu-student-gelijk-vermoeden-discriminatie-antispieksoftware-terecht","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch.","independence_group":"at5-2022-12-09"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://vu.nl/nl/nieuws/2023/uitspraak-college-voor-de-rechten-van-de-mens","kind":"institution_statement","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch on 2026-10-28; the research agent (an AI) translated the passages for this record; quotations are kept in Dutch.","independence_group":"vu-statement-2023-10-17"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","accessibility"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-28"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_decision_about"]},"name":"Amsterdam student says Proctorio exam software repeatedly failed to detect her face; rights body found no discrimination but faulted complaint handling","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2020-01-01","incidentEndDate":"2021-05-26","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2022-07-15","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"Proctorio","aiCompany":"Proctorio","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"disputed","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://oordelen.mensenrechten.nl/oordeel/2023-111","primarySourceLabel":"Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, ruling 2023-111 on VU Amsterdam's use of Proctorio, 17 October 2023","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-28T03:05:48.901494+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-28T03:05:48.901494+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["proctorio","online-proctoring","face-detection","exam","university","netherlands","equality-body","complaint-handling"]}]}