Note: this blog post is the fifth in a multi-part series on “the law and ethics of Chegg.”

I will be posting my Model Criminal Complaint against Chegg, Inc. and Chegg CEO Dan Rosensweig next week (most likely on Tuesday or Wednesday). I am still debating whether students who use Chegg should be named as unindicted co-conspirators in this case, which would make “the Chegg Conspiracy” (as I have re-named my research project) one of the largest criminal enterprises in world history(!), but here is a preview of where I am thus far. In brief, the indictment will allege two criminal counts against Chegg: wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. My theory of the case is that Chegg commits fraud in two ways: (1) fraud writ large, and (2) individualized fraud against its users. As I see it, Chegg commits fraud writ large because it bills itself as a legitimate business, a seller of honest tutoring services–when, in reality, Chegg is nothing more than a glorified contract-cheating website–and it commits individualized fraud against its users by cheating them out of a real education. (When students use Chegg to look up the answers to their test questions, they are not really learning the material.)