SAN FRANCISCO — The software company involved in California’s troubled February 2025 bar examination agreed to pay $1.35 million to settle a proposed class action brought by test takers, according to papers filed in federal court.
About 4,100 examinees would receive full refunds of the $153 laptop fee they paid to take the exam under the agreement with Meazure Learning, also known as ProctorU.
A high-stakes technology failure
The February 2025 test was California’s first bar exam offered both in person and online. Some candidates could not log in, while others reported crashes and related technical failures during an examination that determines entry to the legal profession.
The company had sought dismissal, arguing that its single-use software was an intangible item outside the consumer-protection laws invoked by the plaintiffs. Neither Meazure nor lead counsel for the examinees immediately commented on the proposed resolution.
The settlement would permit plaintiffs’ lawyers to seek up to $450,000 in fees and nearly $28,000 in costs. Each of the seven named plaintiffs would receive $10,000. Unclaimed money would be directed to the California Lawyers Foundation.
Approval still required
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar is scheduled to consider preliminary approval on Jan. 27. Until the court approves the agreement, the class will not receive refunds and the settlement is not final.
Meazure separately settled a State Bar of California lawsuit in July, agreeing to pay $5.25 million and give up an outstanding $1.36 million payment. The cases have made testing technology — once treated as administrative infrastructure — a central issue of consumer protection and professional access.
A settlement is not final when it is filed
In a class action, the court must determine that the agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate for absent members. Preliminary approval permits notice to the class. Examinees may then object, opt out where the rules allow and review the requested legal fees before a final hearing.
Judge Tigar will examine the strength and risk of the claims, likely litigation costs, the method used to distribute refunds and whether the named plaintiffs receive disproportionate benefits. Approval of attorneys’ fees is separate from approval of the overall fund.
Why the laptop fee became the measure
A full refund of the required technology charge is easy to calculate and reaches every covered examinee. It does not compensate separately for study time, anxiety, delayed admission or lost employment opportunities. Those injuries can be difficult to value uniformly across a class and may have made continued litigation more complex.
The $10,000 service awards recognize the named plaintiffs’ work, but courts scrutinize such payments to ensure they do not purchase support for a weak deal.
Unclaimed money and access to justice
Directing residual funds to a legal nonprofit is a form of cy pres distribution. The recipient should have a close connection to the interests of the class. Improving access and diversity in the profession relates to bar applicants, although the court may ask why more money cannot be distributed directly.
Accountability beyond the vendor
The State Bar selected the delivery model and remains responsible for the integrity of licensing. Its separate settlement with Meazure addresses contractual and institutional losses; the examinees’ case addresses consumer harm.
Future exams need redundancy, realistic load testing, clear failure protocols and a method for preserving answers locally when connectivity breaks. Candidates should know before test day how technical interruptions will affect time and scoring.
The deeper lesson is that a licensing body cannot outsource public responsibility along with software. Technology vendors can pay damages, but regulators must design systems in which one failure does not decide who may enter a profession.
