Bar exam vendor renews challenge to fraud claims

The vendor behind the February 2025 California bar exam renewed its demurrer attacking the State Bar's expanded fraud allegations and accusing the agency of trying to publicly shift blame for the exam's failures.

In a Los Angeles County Superior Court filing Wednesday, Chicago attorneys at Esbrook PC defending Meazure Learning argued the bar's amended complaint improperly attempts to transform what is "and has always been, a breach-of contract case" into fraud and other tort claims.

In April, retired Superior Court Judge Stephen P. Pfahler denied an earlier demurrer as moot after the bar filed an amended complaint that added allegations drawn from internal communications. This included claims that Meazure employees internally recognized platform weaknesses, capacity concerns and issues involving withheld login data from a prior experimental exam.

Rather than oppose Meazure's original demurrer, the bar amended its complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 472, which permits a plaintiff to amend a pleading once as a matter of right before a demurrer is heard.

The case was reassigned to Superior Court Judge Jeffery D. McFarland, who is set to hear the new demurrer next February.

In the filing, signed by Esbrook partner Laura Newcomer Cohen, Meazure argued the bar improperly used discovery-derived internal company materials to transform a contract dispute into a fraud case.

"Despite being put on notice as to the defects in those claims, and despite having the benefit of extensive discovery, plaintiff, the State Bar of California, failed to remedy the legal deficiencies in those non-contract claims," the filing stated.

"The amended complaint can therefore only be viewed as a means to place extensive discovery material in the case - much of it irrelevant - into the public domain in order to shift blame from the State Bar's own mismanagement of the February 2025 California bar exam to defendant."

State Bar general counsel and outside counsel at Hueston Hennigan LLP declined to comment on the demurrer at this time.

During the February 2025 exam, thousands of applicants reported widespread technical problems, including login failures, platform crashes and missing basic testing functions, forcing delays and prompting the State Bar to investigate the vendor's handling of the test.

The lawsuit, initiated months later, alleged ProctorU Inc. - doing business as Meazure Learning - misrepresented its ability to administer the exam and failed to deliver a functioning testing platform.

In response to Meazure's first demurrer last year, the bar amended its complaint to add more detailed fraud and concealment allegations, including claims the company internally acknowledged remote-proctoring limitations, attempted to shift blame onto test takers after the exam disruptions and withheld detailed login data tied to a November 2024 experimental test. The State Bar of California v. ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning, 25STCV13089 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed May 5, 2025).

Newly added to the amended complaint, according to Meazure's characterization, were allegations the company internally understood its platform was "fragile and likely to fail" during the February 2025 exam and struggled to secure enough remote proctors.

The demurrer argues those additional details still fail to establish actionable fraud because the alleged duties arose from negotiated contractual obligations governing testing capacity, audits and platform performance.

The company also renewed arguments that the State Bar could not reasonably rely on pre-contract statements regarding testing capacity because the parties' agreement expressly disclaimed outside representations not included in the contract itself.

The filing further contends the State Bar is attempting to evade a contractual liability limitation capping damages at $5 million annually by maintaining fraud-based claims seeking putative damages.

Meazure additionally characterized statements about remote-proctoring capacity as non-actionable "puffing or statements of opinion" rather than factual misrepresentations.

The demurrer asks the judge to dismiss the bar's non-contract claims - including fraudulent inducement and concealment, false promise, negligent misrepresentation, implied covenant and declaratory relief claims - while leaving a lone breach of contract allegation intact.