Chegg to Court: We Are Not a Cheating Company
Plus, updates on Grammarly and cheating. Plus, Grammarly on TV. Plus, cheating tests for driving luggage carts in Japan.
Issue 279
To join the 3,773 smart people who subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” enter your e-mail address below. New Issues every Tuesday and Thursday. It’s free:
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 17 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks via Patreon. Or joining the 33 outstanding citizens who are now paid subscribers. Thank you!
Chegg Tells Court It’s Not a Cheating Company. No, Really.
As covered previously, Chegg’s investors are suing the company over its massive drop in value after the pandemic, which is a decline of more than 90% now (see Issue 273). Investors allege that Chegg did not tell them that its record earnings during the pandemic were due to cheating (see Issue 163).
Not being a lawyer, and this not being a highly newsworthy case to most people, the legal challenges have been difficult to track. But news did surface this past week (subscription required) about one of the cases, that Chegg was in a Connecticut court saying, with a straight face it seems, that it is not a cheating company.
This is from the coverage. Kristy is Chegg’s lawyer:
"I think what the plaintiff just argued is truly extraordinary," Kristy said. "Their argument, if I heard correctly, is that Chegg's entire business model is dishonest. There are no facts to corroborate that kind of claim."
There are entire international shipping containers of facts to corroborate that claim. It is itself a fact. Chegg’s entire business model is dishonest. It probably did not start that way, but it is now. And it has been for some time.
I would have been a good witness. Maybe.
And I understand why Chegg has to argue its business is not selling cheating. I even understand why Chegg’s leaders have to tell themselves that. But it’s a farce. And I’d wager that should any of these cases ever get to discovery, they will find that Chegg knows good and well what business they are actually in.
The coverage also quotes a lawyer for the shareholders who:
added that the suit focuses on stockholders' interest in the company's business and "whether it's a legal or ethical business."
Let’s end the mystery. In many places, what Chegg does is illegal. It’s unethical everywhere.
Law360, which published the piece, described Chegg this way:
Chegg's business, in part, includes paying tens of thousands of contributors to solve textbook and test problems and then feeding results into its online system, without approval from publishers or educational institutions, according to the complaint.
The company in the past has been at the center of cheating scandals across the U.S., with the complaint alleging test and homework questions and answers can show up on its sites within minutes of use for a course.
Wait a second — we’re waiting for a ruling on this one.
Ding! True.
As I’ve written before, for a company that’s absolutely not a cheating company, Chegg does seem to be involved in cheating cases pretty always.
Further, Chegg’s lawyers argued:
that the cheating claims and suit would have to show more than half of Chegg's revenues come from providing answers rather than study help to student subscribers. He also argued the suit relied on "the fiction that Chegg just provides an answer. That's not what Chegg does at all. It provides step-by-step instructions to students who want to learn. It's like having an online tutor."
If Chegg’s revenue from cheating is one penny under 75%, I’ll never mention the company again.
And, yes, Chegg provides instructions — with the answer. If you’re cheating, sometimes step-by-step is required. It is part of the cheating. And when all you need is the answer, the backup process does not matter. It is not complicated.
Moreover, as part of this complete nonsense, we’re supposed to believe that millions of students are paying a monthly fee to access online tutoring and not just buying the answers. Really? And Chegg is sticking with that assertion? Fascinating.
The story also has a brief summary of the legal activities related to this challenge:
The Chancery lawsuit was filed in February 2023, a year or more after the start of other securities and derivative damages class actions targeting the same alleged conduct by Chegg. All but the Delaware suit are currently stayed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California pending the outcome of dismissal arguments there.
I’m not sure it will ever come to this, but I’d really enjoy someone laying out all the evidence on whether or not Chegg is a cheating company.
Updates on Student Who Used Grammarly to Cheat
In Issue 263, we looked at a student who was sanctioned for misconduct and claimed she used Grammarly — that her use of Grammarly triggered a penalty of misconduct.
That is important for context as Grammarly isn’t just your basic grammar checker anymore. It’s a full-on AI writing tool. And the student in this case, at least as far as I know, has never clarified which Grammarly features she used. To those who know, it’s clear that she did more than check her work.
In any case, her school’s newspaper, The Vanguard, of The University of North Georgia, has an update on this case. This case has also spun up other news coverage.
By way of news, the school paper reports that:
Stevens said her professor used Turnitin and it was flagged for AI usage, and then they reported her. This resulted in the Office of Student Integrity putting Stevens on conduct probation, according to Stevens. Also, according to Stevens’ TikTok from Feb. 16, 2024, the conduct committee put her on one year of conduct probation and is requiring her to take a seminar about cheating and academic honesty. Stevens posted a TikTok video saying the committee came to that decision because the Turnitin report supported the allegations that she used AI on her assignment.
So, she was sanctioned with probation. And, presumably, whatever her grade for the assignment was. Feels safe to assume she did not get high marks.
The reporters at UNG also wisely checked with Turnitin about what may have happened and reported that:
According to Turnitin.com, it does not detect Grammarly spell-checking modifications as AI, unless it is a GrammarlyGo altered text, which is a generative AI writing tool.
The paper further cites Turnitin’s site, saying it does not flag classic grammar checking but:
Please note that this excludes GrammarlyGo, which is a generative AI writing tool and as such content produced using this tool will likely be flagged as AI-generated by our detector.
So, again, if you’re reading between the lines about what happened here, the picture is coming into focus.
But also - shout out to The Vanguard. Their reporting is far better than almost anything else on this topic. It’s amazing what a little curiosity and effort will uncover.
From this coverage, some students have been quick to note a kind of hypocrisy at play at UNG since the school lists Grammarly as a tool for students on its website:
One student who asked to remain anonymous says, “Maybe if you are going to put students on probation for using Grammarly, your website shouldn’t list in on the school’s website as a tool.”
Fair. But it’s also clear that there is confusion between the Grammarly of old and the new version.
Finally, the paper says that the student has found a lawyer and established a fund to pay for legal fees — to which Grammarly has donated $4,000. Grammarly, our student says, has also hired her for a paid ambassador post.
I get why — Grammarly does not want a student warning others not to use their products. And they for sure don’t want a school to uphold any sanctions for using their products. But if the student here did use an AI writer to do her work, Grammarly is actively helping her avoid consequences. Nice.
Speaking of: Grammarly TV
I kid you not, I was watching a hockey game a few nights ago and an ad came on — an ad for Grammarly.
I found the ad and one that appears to be a companion. Here they are:
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/6opR/grammarly-team-alignment
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/6o72/grammarly-third-quarter-planning
Both describe Grammarly as “an AI writing partner.” Both show people in office settings asking Grammarly to write for them, summarize reports, and draft e-mails.
In the second commercial, the protagonist is described as “pretty tired” and “stuck” while facing a deadline that “is looming.” But hope is not lost as she turns to Grammarly, her “AI writing partner,” to summarize and revise and becomes a hero when she meets her deadline.
In academic settings, you can see why this is a problem. You may also see that a defense such as “it’s just Grammarly,” isn’t.
Anyway — and again. Grammarly is a full-on AI writing program now, just like ChatGPT. Using it for academic work may well be cheating.
Cheating Japanese Baggage Car Drivers
For fun, here’s a news item from Japan in which the company that owns Japan Airways announced that affiliated companies had allowed people who drive luggage cars and catering trucks to cheat on written driving exams.
From the coverage:
A total of 78 drivers at ANA cheated on tests conducted by two subsidiaries between August 2022 and February 2024, Japan’s biggest airline said in a statement. That included invigilators allowing candidates to look at textbooks while taking their exams, it said.
I never mean to minimize cheating. It’s always bad. But I’m not sure which I find more curious, that there are written tests to drive luggage carts or that people felt compelled to cheat on them.