Australian Government Sues Chegg
Plus, Chegg sued Australian regulator first - and why that's just bonkers. Plus, departures from Chegg's Board.
Issue 314
Subscribe below to join 4,137 other smart people who get “The Cheat Sheet.” New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday.
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 16 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 40 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Paid subscriptions start at $8 a month. Thank you!
TEQSA, Australia’s Anti-Cheating Regulator, Sues Chegg
In what may turn out to be big news, Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), charged with enforcing the country’s very good anti-cheating laws, has sued Chegg, alleging violations of those laws.
If you have not been following this particular front in the war on cheating, as represented by cheating provider Chegg, let me quickly catch you up.
Long on the forefront of cheating awareness and action, a few years ago, Australia passed new laws smartly aimed at cheating providers — those who sell and profit from academic fraud.
TEQSA has acted under the law to block/ban many cheating providers (see Issue 142, or Issue 157, or Issue 63), but not Chegg or other big, international players.
In May 2023, TEQSA finally began asking questions about Chegg (see Issue 210).
During this, whether by incompetence or arrogance, Chegg seemed determined to draw the ire of regulators in Australia (see Issue 234).
Then, seemingly inexplicably, Chegg sued TEQSA. According to the coverage, Chegg complained it was being “singled out” and viewed “more critically” than others.
I did not write about Chegg suing TEQSA. I just could not get to it. I’ll do a little bit on this in the next section. But now it seems obvious why Chegg fired first — they knew TEQSA was about to act.
So, to that.
Times Higher Ed, which continues to be nearly the only outlet to even cover academic fraud, has the story. The coverage says that TEQSA has charged Chegg with violations of the law which:
banned organisations from providing, offering to provide or arranging for third parties to provide academic cheating services.
I mean, that is what Chegg does. It is their business model, and their overwhelming source of revenue. That shoe fits.
The coverage also says Chegg has violated the law five times over the past year or two. And that TEQSA is seeking:
“declarations about the alleged contraventions, civil penalties, costs and other orders” from the Federal Court of Australia.
Hard to know exactly what “declarations” the Australian government is seeking related to Chegg. But keep in mind that in March, a federal judge in the US found that Chegg was likely to be a cheating provider and may have given misstatements related to those illicit activities (see Issue 280).
I am delighted that TEQSA has finally decided to act regarding Chegg. It was overdue. You may remember that in past posts, I’d criticized TEQSA for squashing small fish while looking away from the whales of Chegg and Course Hero (see Issue 142).
Most importantly, right before our eyes, a government is showing how to deal with threats of academic misconduct and fraud — acknowledge the problem, pass a law, empower people to enforce that law, enforce that law.
Consider this quote from the THE coverage:
“Where Teqsa finds academic cheating services being advertised or offered to students, we will take appropriate action to protect the integrity and reputation of Australia’s higher education sector,” acting chief commissioner Adrienne Nieuwenhuis said.
The United States, meanwhile, has neither laws nor enforcement mechanisms, nor the will to create either. It is an ongoing national shame.
Anyway, as Chegg stock fumbles to find the bottom of drain, down 98% from its peak, these final chapters in Australia will be very, very interesting to watch.
Chegg Suing TEQSA
As mentioned, I did not get to this a few weeks ago, as it happened. But that does not mean I do not have thoughts, to which you will be subjected approximately now.
Coverage was scant. The Australian did write it up, but it’s behind a paywall. Here is the opening paragraph:
US online education support company Chegg, which the higher education regulator previously named as a threat to academic integrity, has taken TEQSA to court, arguing that it has been “singled out” and viewed “more critically” than other similar technologies.
The Australian also reports that:
Australia is an important market for the company, with 100,000 paying subscribers
And that:
A Chegg spokesperson told The Australian that “for over two years, we have engaged in active conversations with TEQSA, investing significant time and resources into finding a constructive path forward”
So, that’s interesting. Two years they have been meeting with TEQSA, trying to work this out, which everyone knows is code for ‘what can we do so you don’t sue us?’
Further:
The Chegg spokesperson said that as part of their conversations with TEQSA, they had custom-build a program called “Honour Shield” for internal university Learning Management Systems “to prevent cheating”.
Maybe Chegg’s “honor shield” is different in Australia than it is elsewhere. But the idea that Chegg built it for Australia is fiction. It has existed since at least April of 2021 — a year before Chegg says they began engaging with TEQSA.
Let’s also review this “honor shield” for a second.
One, to use it, professors have to send their test questions to Chegg, the world’s largest cheating seller. Yes, to have Chegg not help your students cheat, you have to give Chegg your test ahead of time. Lost to time and memory is that when Chegg first launched “honor shield,” they made educators release their copy rights to the test forever, essentially giving Chegg the right to keep it or sell it. They dropped that policy.
Remember too that, to use “honor shield” an educator has to use their official .edu e-mail address — a policy Chegg has said it cannot require for students (see Issue 38). Students can use Chegg’s question and answer service with any untraceable burner e-mail address. So long as their credit card works, I imagine.
The Australian also reported:
Top Australian universities have recently referred to Chegg as a “contract cheating” service – a label the company firmly rejects
But let’s spend just two seconds more on Chegg’s rejection of the cheating label. In short, it’s a contention that no longer holds credibility, if it ever did. In addition to declining to make students use official e-mail addresses to use their services, Chegg has, over the past few years:
Changed policy to no longer identify Chegg customers who received answers to questions during an assessment (see Issue 152).
Shuttered its actual tutoring services.
Announced a partnership with OpenAI/ChatGPT (see Issue 203).
Been sued several times by investors who allege that Chegg profited from cheating, knew it, and mislead them about it. In at least one case, a judge has initially sided with shareholders (see Issue 280).
Seriously, go read what a federal judge wrote about Chegg and cheating. And just for fun, please also go browse Issue 224.
Finally, to this idea that TEQSA is picking on Chegg. Here is the money quote from Chegg, in The Australian:
“Despite the rapid advancements in generative AI technology offering immediate and unfettered student support, TEQSA continues to single out Chegg’s products, viewing them more critically than other similar technologies, and reject our efforts to address their concerns with innovative solutions.
Translation: why are you picking on us when AI does the same thing we do?
I’ll take unintentional damning admissions for $200, Ken. And while I have the board, I’ll take preposterous euphemisms for fraud for $400.
I mean, what on Earth is, “immediate and unfettered student support”? It means that AI gets students answers to test and homework questions immediately and for free, which has been a primary reason that Chegg’s business model is in collapse — people no longer want to pay for what they can now get for nothing.
And let’s all just marinade for a second on what a terrible defense that is to being accused of illegal activity — that others are doing it is not the foundation of the innocent. Just imagine a spokesperson for Purdue Pharma telling a court, “There are other drugs out there, new ones that are way more addictive. Why are you singling out our products?”
Pablo Escobar should have asked courts to block legal proceedings on the grounds that other people were selling drugs too, but authorities continue to “single out” his products.
It’s magnificent.
Let me also try to answer that. Maybe TEQSA is going after Chegg because Chegg sells, and directly profits from, providing academic answers. Chegg advertises this and markets directly to students, though they call it “homework help.” I mean just last year, Chegg was hiring Australian student TikTok influencers to promote their services (see Issue 234).
Or, said another way, generative AI has many uses outside test fraud. I do not think Chegg does.
Anyway, Chegg claiming that TEQSA is picking on them is the richest, most absurd thing I’m likely to hear all year.
Departures from Chegg’s Board of Directors
I don’t like making an Issue of The Cheat Sheet all about Chegg. Or any one thing, for that matter. But sometimes it does happen, obviously.
A few weeks ago Chegg announced that two of its Directors were leaving:
Sarah Bond and Dr. Paul LeBlanc are departing its board of directors
It continued:
Bond, president of Xbox, joined Chegg’s Board of Directors in 2020, and LeBlanc, who recently retired as president of Southern New Hampshire University, began his service in 2019.
The “sinking ship” shot is too easy and too obvious to take. Smart of them to get out now, in my opinion. Too late, more than likely. But still good to go.
And I’ll bet my nickels to your dollars that Bond and LeBlanc took a few bucks with them during and for their service. Out of the pockets of students and into theirs, at the cost of integrity and actual learning. Maybe their compensation packages and payouts are public information, but the Chegg announcement did not say.
All that aside, I continue to jump up and down and wave my arms that the (former) President of a university was on the Board of a known, massive cheating provider — especially at a school in which 98% of students take their courses online. Scandal has no more fitting example.