As districts head back to school this year, they should give some extra thought to how they make technology decisions. Last month, a school district in western New York announced that it was postponing plans to use a robot in its classrooms following a major backlash. The Salamanca City Central School District had planned to deploy a humanoid robot named Sally to interact with high school students in STEM and arts courses. The robot would be supplied through a partnership with Realbotix, a former cryptocurrency company that pivoted to robotics and also happens to own a company that manufactures sex dolls.
Around the same time that the Salamanca City Central School district announced Sally’s impending arrival in local classrooms, Anthropic, creator of the popular AI chatbot, Claude, also made a significant announcement aimed at education. Specifically, Anthropic released “Claude for Teachers,” a new generative AI product designed for educators. It promoted the platform as a way for instructors to create and differentiate lesson plans. Anthropic incentivized teachers to sign up “for one free year” by uploading their school ID or contract, and to use its agentic AI tools to analyze class data to plan instruction.
The general public’s distinct reactions to these two products deserve closer examination. While “Sally,” the sex doll affiliate, was greeted with a strong negative response that led to a swift walk back, Claude for Teachers may have deserved a bigger backlash than Sally. Don’t get me wrong; I was as horrified as anyone by the Sally robot, with its Instagram face and an expression that can only be described as dazed. It does not belong in a classroom. But once you take away the shock value and look at how these two products, Sally and Claude for Teachers, stack up against legal requirements for products in schools, Claude for Teachers might be the worse offender.
Here are three reasons why:
Sensitive Data + Third-Party Platforms = Legal Exposure You Can't Ignore
When you hear about Sally, your first question might be, how could this happen? What school district in its right mind orders a robot teacher from a sexbot company? I watched the city's Board of Education meeting where the deployment of Sally in classrooms was discussed. Turns out, officials based the decision on the same earnest themes most commonly raised when any AI project is introduced in any school: access to “cutting-edge technology” and a fear of being left behind.
In fact, officials believed Sally was a better and more secure alternative to chatbots like ChatGPT and Claude, because the robot is part of a “closed-loop system” in which the product does not access the Internet and no data is sent back to its parent company, Realbotix. In a public meeting, the local school superintendent said that if the robot was programmed the same way in the form of a golden retriever instead of a woman, he doubts there would have been such a negative reaction.
Claude for Teachers, meanwhile, raises serious privacy issues related to the transmission and storage of both teacher and student data. In its announcement releasing Claude for Teachers, Anthropic claimed that its product is compliant with FERPA, the federal law that protects student education records. But FERPA only applies to school districts, not privately or publicly held companies. Third-party technology companies can’t claim compliance, according to the Public Interest Privacy Center.
To sign up for Claude for Teachers, Anthropic encouraged teachers to upload documents with sensitive teacher information, such as personal identification and material employment contracts. Worse, it prompted teachers to upload student data, including rosters and attendance records. Even some technology experts who generally support the use of AI raised concerns. Mark Racine, for instance, an educational technology consultant and “a big fan of Claude,” told the publication Government Technology that “throwing around terms like ‘FERPA-compliant’ just feels like a little bit more marketing.”
Takeaway: FERPA compliance does not apply to private or publicly held companies. Any third-party product that collects sensitive teacher and student data poses risks, and a technology company can’t claim on its own to be FERPA-compliant. Educators and staff should never upload sensitive information to third-party tools without district guidance, and any public or private company that claims to be FERPA-compliant deserves scrutiny for credibility and trustworthiness.
The Bait and Switch of “Free”
Salamanca’s $57,000 Sally robot rightfully invoked criticism. That money could have been used toward hiring a trained teacher instead, or for evidence-based programs.
For its part, Claude for Teachers brings a different pricing structure with a clear red flag. The program is free for one year and the price is “unknown” afterwards. “First one’s free” is a cliché long associated with the stereotype of a drug dealer, but in reality, we are all familiar with how it works in technology. Social media, ride shares, and online marketplaces were introduced to us as free or affordable products, which we’ve learned often means we are the products.
Once companies achieve monopoly or near-monopoly control, eliminate competition, and create dependency in users, terms (including payment terms) frequently change in order to exploit users who have learned to have no alternative. Some AI companies aren’t bothering to hide it; addiction is the pitch. This playbook is clear enough to be recognizable at the first stage, and the Claude for Teachers announcement fits.
Takeaway: Districts should expect that free or inexpensive products will become expensive once dependency is created, either through rising monetary costs or extraction of value from districts and its students – who may become the product being monetized rather than the customer being served.
When a Company Avoids Scrutiny, That's A Red Flag
The Salamanca City Central School District’s decision to put a humanoid robot in a classroom was a terrible decision, full stop. As the teachers’ union NYSUT put it, “our students are not lab rats.” But at least the decision to implement Sally was a collaborative district decision. According to the superintendent, the decision was made in consultation with student government as well as local and state authorities.
Claude for Teachers, on the other hand, by passed the districts by advertising the product straight to teachers. Often, school districts tend to lack adequate tools and processes to properly vet third-party technology before staff and student use. But even if any such guardrails are in place, Anthropic skipped over them by encouraging teachers to upload sensitive data about themselves, their schools, and their students in order to use Claude for Teachers, for free. I know of at least one school that quietly had to scramble, interrupting their teachers’ summer plans to send emergency emails asking them not to sign up for the product or submit any information to the accompanying platform.
There was enough backlash on the submission of sensitive information outside of school district channels to pressure Anthropic to issue a clarification. Thanks to Mark Racine and other professionals raising concerns, Anthropic updated its Claude for Teachers page to make clear that “whether and how educational data may be used in its product is governed by district and state policies” – not Anthropic.
As an aside, Google is also doing its best to ensure that students use its latest products without review taking place first. Districts should take a look at the AI products and new “personalized recommendations” that Google is enabling for kids within Google Classroom this fall, as well as the instructions to proactively opt out.
Takeaway: No matter how much you may trust a brand, don’t let advertising convince you to skip independent legal review and existing security protocols. Companies should not be considered the sole authority on the compliance of their products.
Conclusion
School districts and teachers are being approached by eager technology companies looking to incorporate their latest products into schools. The Salamanca City Central School District made an unusual decision putting Sally into its classroom, but its motivations were common; officials were driven by a fear of their students being left behind, and it was a robot teaching robotics. As companies seek to exploit this FOMO, the stakes are high.
Rather than being left to act on impulse or fear, school officials need education about data privacy, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. Responsible and informed leaders can establish consistent standards and systematic reviews that consider learning outcomes, student privacy, and equity. And resulting guidelines need to be clearly communicated. Our students aren’t lab rats, but even lab rats have protocols governing their treatment.
At Rudick Law Group, we advise school officials and advocacy groups on technology policies to accomplish their educational goals and stay compliant with local, state, and federal laws. If you have a policy you’d like reviewed or updated, or if you are curious about developing a new policy, contact us to speak with an attorney.
Shaleen Title brings a rare vantage point to regulatory strategy: she has helped write the rules, not just interpreted them after the fact. Of Counsel at Rudick Law Group, Shaleen is a former Massachusetts cannabis regulator who served as a Commissioner of the Cannabis ControlCommission from 2017 to 2020, a professor of AI regulations and policy at Roger Williams University School of Law, and director of the Parabola Center for Law and Policy. She holds a Certificate of Competence in AI: Law, Policy, and Governance from the London School of Economics, and her research on monopolies and regulatory capture in emerging markets is among the most cited in the field. On client matters, she works alongside the rest of the RLG team to bring that policy and regulatory judgment directly into a business's strategy.
Whether you're building an AI product, entering the cannabis industry, or simply trying to read where regulation is headed next, the perspective of someone who has sat on the other side of the table is worth having early.
stitle@rudicklawgroup.com | (212) 369-4200 | Schedule A Consultation
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Application of federal, state, and/or local laws to specific facts and circumstances requires individualized legal analysis.
.webp)
