Georgia Enacts Law Against “Commercial” Cheating

Maintaining Educational Integrity
Although cheating has likely been around as long as grades and exams, the internet and new technologies have transformed some cheating from acts of dishonesty by individuals to a shadowy commercial enterprise. In an attempt to stem this trend, the new law:

• Makes it unlawful for any person, “for a commercial purpose, to provide or otherwise cause to be provided any work product to a student or examinee in a substantially completed form that could, under the circumstances, reasonably be considered as being, or forming a part of, an assessment task”;
• Nullifies any disclaimer or contractual language between the person providing work product (the “Provider”) and the student or examinee that seeks to indemnify the Provider;
• Allows the provision of tutoring assistance, research material, or general information to students and examinees;
• Allows the provision of automated systems, software, and generative response platforms where they do not provide a substantially completed assignment, and the primary purpose of the platform is not to provide or complete tasks; and
• Categorizes violations of the law as an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” under Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act of 1975.

The statute defines a “person” as “individuals, partnerships, firms, limited liability companies, associations, corporations, other legal entities, or unincorporated organizations.”

The new law is relatively limited in reach, applying only with respect to academic assignments or assessments by Georgia public or private schools, by public colleges or universities in Georgia, by “any organization that issues a professional license” in Georgia, or by employees or agents of those organizations.

Enforcement and Relief
The new law does not create a private cause of action. Rather, the Georgia Attorney General is charged with enforcing the law. Under other provisions of Georgia’s Code, the Attorney General is permitted to coordinate with the Secretary of State to revoke a person’s professional license if they are found operating a business providing commercial cheating services. The Attorney General may also hold hearings, issue subpoenas, issue cease-and-desist orders, require payment of restitution to any person or persons adversely affected by a defendant’s commercial cheating, and impose civil penalties up to $2,000 per violation.

The Attorney General may also request that a Superior Court provide additional relief, including issuance of temporary restraining orders or temporary or permanent injunctions, civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation, declaratory judgment, and restitution to any person or persons adversely affected by a defendant’s commercial cheating. Superior Courts may also appoint a receiver, auditor, or conservator for the defendant and provide other relief they deem equitable.

The Problem with Commercial Cheating
Some commercial cheating rings have attracted law enforcement attention, including prosecutions for racketeering and unlawful conspiracies, such as the widely reported Operation Varsity Blues scheme that included cheating on college admissions tests and bribing athletic coaches to falsely designate applicants as athletic recruits. However, other commercial cheating schemes have been harder to detect. After ChatGPT was released in November 2022, and with the increasing ubiquity of readily accessible generative AI platforms, commercial products can quickly provide answers to homework questions. Students who routinely use commercial cheating services throughout an undergraduate or professional program may attain a degree without the knowledge or competencies that the degree signals that they gained through their course of study. This could have a debilitating effect on the American workforce.

A recent New York Magazine article titled “Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College” reported that students from all levels of the education system admit to their increasing reliance on generative AI to complete assignments, write papers, and pass exams. In some cases, students confessed that up to 80% of their coursework is produced by using tools like ChatGPT. Educators quoted in the article called the trend an “existential crisis for the humanities,” warning that we are facing a generation of graduates who are “functionally illiterate” and “critically disengaged,” transforming education from understanding fundamental skills into an exercise in prompt engineering. The article also reported on a new venture seeking to harness generative AI tools to “enable you to cheat on pretty much everything,” including on remotely administered standardized tests.

According to a recent article in Forbes, Georgia’s SB 213 directly responds to this threat, aiming to dismantle the infrastructure of for-profit academic dishonesty by outlawing the sale of substantially completed academic work or commercial products that enable cheating on licensing exams. These services are not simply aiding learning; they’re replacing it by packaging plagiarism and fraud into a commercial product.

Open Questions and Guidance
While SB 213 establishes a strong foundation for curbing the sale of substantially completed academic or licensure-related work, several interpretive and jurisdictional ambiguities remain—especially for universities, professional-school programs, and certification bodies entrusted with safeguarding credential integrity:

• How will courts evaluate a platform’s “primary purpose”?
  SB 213 exempts automated tools whose primary purpose is not to generate assessment tasks. Yet if student usage data reveal that a platform’s dominant function is furnishing turnkey answers, institutions must consider whether the exemption still applies—and whether continued vendor relationships create risk.
• Does the statute extend to facilitators or intermediaries?
  Although the law targets direct providers of work product, it is unclear whether platform owners, AI-tool developers, or hosting services could be liable when their technologies enable cheating. Universities and testing organizations should audit third-party contracts and terms of service.
• How does SB 213 establish a jurisdictional nexus with out-of-state institutions?
  While SB 213 does not explicitly reference extraterritorial reach, it defines “assignor” to include any public or private educational institution, home study program, or licensing board “in this state,” and “student or examinee” to mean anyone enrolled in such Georgia-based entities. This suggests that jurisdiction turns not on where the Provider is located, but on whether the recipient of the cheating service is a student or licensure candidate at a Georgia-based institution. Consequently, out-of-state Providers (including test-prep services, tutoring platforms, and freelance writers) may fall within Georgia’s enforcement reach if they supply substantially completed work to a Georgia student or examinee. Institutions serving national or online populations should carefully assess the application of Georgia’s laws.
• Does the new law cover national certification exams administered by nonprofit organizations that are required for professional licensure but are not administered by the state?
  Because the new law protects “any organization that issues a professional license” in Georgia as well as “agents of those organizations” it is unclear whether commercial cheating on a private certification exam that a statute requires for licensure would violate this law.

These uncertainties indicate that future judicial action, legislative amendments, or agency interventions may be necessary to delineate, clarify, or potentially even expand the statute’s scope. Meanwhile, educational and credentialing institutions with a nexus with Georgia should consider the new enforcement tools that SB 213 make available to address commercial cheating, while also distinguishing legitimate academic support from services that merely masquerade as such.

Conclusion
SB 213 seeks to reaffirm that education is a public trust, not a commodity. By categorizing commercial cheating services as unfair trade practices under Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, the law seeks not only to prevent fraud, but to preserve the long-term value of learning, credentialing, and the institutions that confer them.

At the same time, the law represents a targeted response to the rise of AI-enabled and contract cheating tools that allow students and examinees to outsource academic and professional assessments. According to student testimony, these services are less a tool for learning and more a substitute for it. As a result, they threaten the credibility of academic programs, certification bodies, and licensure systems.

While SB 213 provides a strong statutory foundation, its effectiveness will depend on careful enforcement and ongoing interpretation. Institutions, vendors, and enforcement agencies must remain alert to evolving tactics, especially as legal ambiguities around compensation, platform purpose, and jurisdiction continue to develop.