Student plaintiffs fight school district adoption of AI surveillance software

Issue 52 

While significant media attention on AI-related lawsuits is understandably devoted to the many copyright infringement cases currently progressing through the courts, AI-related issues have cropped up in many diverse areas of law. In my last newsletter, I wrote about recent settlements by Character Technologies and Google in teen suicide and negligence lawsuits. In this issue, we’re taking a closer look at Tell et al. v. Lawrence Board of Education et al., No. 2:25-cv-02428 (D. Kan. filed Aug. 1, 2025). 

In August 2025, former and current student plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Lawrence Board of Education, Lawrence USD 497, and an assistant principal at Lawrence High School. The lawsuit challenged the Lawrence, Kansas School District’s adoption of AI software called Gaggle, which allegedly scans and flags potentially objectionable material in student emails, documents, and other files on school-issued accounts and devices.[i] The complaint alleged that items created by numerous art, journalism, and photography students were flagged and ultimately removed, even though the items did not violate school policy.[ii]  The complaint included claims for violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.[iii]  

On August 15, 2025, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining Lawrence USD 497, the Lawrence Board of Education, and others from enforcing or reimposing a prior restraint prohibiting the Lawrence High School student newspaper and its editor-in-chief from reporting on the lawsuit, or taking or threatening adverse employment action against the newspaper’s faculty advisers due to such reporting.[iv]  

On August 29, 2025, defendants filed a response, alleging that a signed memorandum had been provided to the Lawrence High School’s student journalism advisor, which stated that the students were free to publish about the ongoing Gaggle lawsuit.[v] Further, the response alleged that the school district had assured plaintiffs’ counsel that the district would not restrict the journalism advisor from lawful reporting on the Gaggle lawsuit.[vi]  

In November 2025, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which added the Lawrence High School principal as a defendant, and added new allegations and claims, including a claim that the First Amendment rights of plaintiff Ashlyn Tell, the school newspaper’s editor-in-chief, were violated by the principal, who allegedly forbid the student reporters from reporting on the Gaggle lawsuit and caused a teacher to pressure Ms. Tell not to publish an article about the lawsuit, even after purportedly rescinding the initial directive.[vii] The first amended complaint also added three claims for violations of the Kansas Open Records Act (“KORA”), and alleged that the school district had replaced Gaggle with a substantially similar platform called ManagedMethods.[viii]    

On December 19, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to partially dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, arguing in part that the complaint “largely fails” to establish subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs who have already graduated from high school are not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief, that the school district has stopped using Gaggle to monitor students, and because the plaintiffs acknowledge that the alleged restrictions and retaliations in relation to the student paper reporting on the lawsuit have ended.[ix] Defendants also argued that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for various reasons, including that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Lawrence High School principal and assistant principal were not entitled to qualified immunity, and that the plaintiffs’ KORA claims were improperly made.[x] 

On January 20, 2026, plaintiffs Ashlyn Tell and P.M. moved for partial judgment on the pleadings against the Lawrence Board of Education and Lawrence USD 497 on the KORA claims, and entry of a declaratory and compliance order that would require defendants to issue a KORA-complaint response within 14 days.[xi]  

At the time that this issue of the newsletter was prepared for publication, scheduling in this case had been deferred.[xii]  

Thanks for being here.  

Jennifer Ballard  
Good Journey Consulting  

P.S. Have you considered whether your clients may have AI-related claims or liabilities? There are over 80 AI-related lawsuits I’m tracking in areas including copyright infringement, copyright and patent applications, privacy, discrimination, facial recognition, healthcare, libel, lie detection, wiretapping, FOIA, malware, school suspensions, deepfakes, wire fraud, wrongful death, and antitrust. You can find summaries of all of these cases in Chapter 4 of A Lawyer’s Practical Guide to AI.   

[i] Complaint at 4, Tell et al. v. Lawrence Board of Education et al., No. 2:25-cv-02428 (D. Kan. filed Aug. 1, 2025). 

[ii] Id. at 1-2. 

[iii] Id. at 36-47.  

[iv] Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction at 1, Tell. 

[v] Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and For Preliminary Injunction at 1, Tell. 

[vi] Id. at 2-3. 

[vii] First Amended Complaint for Civil Rights Violations at 12, 75-77, Tell. 

[viii] Id. at 1, 77-79. 

[ix] Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint at 2-5, Tell. 

[x] Id. at 7-17, 19-21. 

[xi] Plaintiffs Ashlyn Tell and P.M.’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the pleadings on KORA Violations and for Declaratory and Compliance Order at 7, Tell. 

[xii] See text-only docket entry No. 20, dated Nov. 13, 2025, Tell.