THOUSANDS OF DRIVERS COULD LOSE LICENSES AFTER DMV ISSUE: HERE'S WHY
More than 11,000 California drivers are being told to retake a written driver’s license exam within 30 days or risk losing their licenses after the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) identified unspecified “irregularities” in their original test results.
State officials have provided little explanation as to what went wrong and whether cheating is suspected.
Why It Matters
While the California DMV said the irregularities are not related to artificial intelligence (AI) or internal tech issues, the retesting requirement has raised questions by some about the growing role of automated decision-making systems in government services.
As public agencies increasingly rely on AI-powered monitoring tools, experts say, that technical errors could quickly scale into life-altering consequences for thousands of people.
“The state can turn a software flag into a real-world penalty before a human being ever explains what allegedly went wrong, and California’s decision to make some drivers retake a written test or risk license cancellation shows how quickly this can shift options,” Alex Beene, financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek.
What To Know
The California DMV said that approximately 11,000 drivers who took written knowledge tests from July 2025 to April 2026 must retake the exam within 30 days or face cancellation of their licenses.
Affected drivers received letters saying that their test results showed “non-compliance with the driver testing criteria required by state law,” but many say they have not been told what specific irregularities were identified.
“Ensuring the integrity of our testing process is essential. Knowledge tests play a critical role in confirming that drivers understand the rules of the road before they are licensed to drive in California,” a spokesperson for the California DMV told Newsweek.
“This has been a California DMV-led effort and is part of our regular internal monitoring process. We can confirm that this is not AI related nor is it related to internal technical problems.”
Sacramento resident David Specht told CBS Sacramento and ABC7 that he initially feared the state was accusing him of cheating.
“I know I didn’t cheat,” Specht said. “And I presume many of the other 11,000 residents of California who received the letter also didn’t cheat.”
After contacting the DMV, Specht said, he was unable to get a clear explanation for why his test had been flagged.
“My other thought is that something is wrong with their system on the back end. Maybe they botched some data, and now they can’t tell who passed, who failed,” he said.
The Technology Behind California’s Online Testing
California has increasingly shifted portions of its driver’s license testing process online through a remote proctoring platform known as MVProctor. The system allows applicants to take knowledge tests remotely while software monitors their activity and verifies compliance with testing requirements.
MVProctor uses technology provided by Proctortrack, an online exam proctoring company that employs automated monitoring tools including identity verification as well as behavioral monitoring intended to detect potential rule violations.
Newsweek also reached out to Proctortrack for comment via email.
While remote proctoring became widespread during the pandemic, the technology has remained controversial.
“MVProctor’s role is to let Californians take DMV knowledge tests online, but when that system is tied to a company which has faced serious criticism over security and privacy, the public should have more transparency about what was flagged, how decisions were reviewed and what appeal rights drivers have,” Beene said.
Automated Monitoring Can Produce False Flags
While the California DMV said the retesting mandate was unrelated to AI or its internal technology, remote proctoring systems have faced years of criticism due to the possibility of false positives. This can happen when users’ normal non-cheating testing behavior is incorrectly flagged as suspicious.
If fully automated under today’s technology, ordinary actions like looking away from a screen, adjusting one’s position or experiencing technical difficulties could be flagged as problematic.
Even Proctortrack itself has acknowledged industry concerns about “false positives.” The company recently promoted new features designed to reduce incorrect flagging and improve review processes.
“As AI-based proctoring becomes standard across institutions in the World, one challenge continues to surface: False positives. Innocent behavior flagged as suspicious,” the company wrote on LinkedIn two months ago “Suddenly, trust in the system starts to decline… With Proctortrack, institutions can reduce false positives and improve accuracy.”
However, experts say, when governments rely heavily on automated monitoring systems, even a small error rate can deliver significant consequences for thousands of people.
Tom Clayton, president and COO of digital safety company Aura, said if a government agency does experience a high-profile glitch that creates confusion or urgency, scammers are also quick to capitalize on it with convincing phishing emails and text messages.
“Whenever a government agency experiences a public-facing error that leaves people uncertain about what they need to do next, scammers move fast,” Clayton told Newsweek. “We often see fake emails and text messages claiming recipients need to verify their identity, pay a fee, or click a link to resolve the issue.”
Security Concerns at Proctortrack
Proctortrack has also faced scrutiny over its security and privacy practices for several years.
A 2020 Consumer Reports investigation found that a software leak involving Proctortrack raised concerns that sensitive student information, including video recordings, facial recognition data and identification documents, could potentially have been exposed.
At the time, cybersecurity experts criticized the company’s security practices and questioned whether the education institutions involved were conducting sufficient oversight.
“We were deeply concerned by what we found,” Consumer Reports privacy researcher Bill Fitzgerald said at the time. “The mistakes that were evident from even a quick look at the code looked like something that should never have gone into production.”
What Happens Next
The affected California drivers will need to schedule appointments and retake their written knowledge tests within 30 days.
Walk-ins will not be permitted, and drivers must bring their DMV notice to the appointment.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Kate Nalepinski and Edward T. Cummins.
Related Articles
2026-07-08T22:43:44Z
