Integrity Advocate has announced a new partnership with D2L, bringing identity verification, participation monitoring, and AI detection capabilities directly into the D2L Brightspace learning management system.

Why This Partnership Matters Now

The emergence of AI-powered browser plugins has introduced a new challenge for online assessment. These tools can covertly answer exam questions on a participant's behalf without requiring them to leave the assessment page, and they are increasingly easy to obtain and use. Organizations relying on standard LMS controls have no mechanism to detect them.

The Integrity Advocate and D2L partnership addresses this directly, giving Brightspace users access to Integrity Advocate's full suite of monitoring capabilities, including ExposeAI, within their existing platform environment.

{{post-block-quote}}

What D2L Brightspace Users Now Have Access To

The integration gives D2L Brightspace users access to Integrity Advocate's full monitoring suite, seamlessly embedded within Brightspace and fully responsive across all devices.

This includes ExposeAI, Integrity Advocate's purpose-built detection capability for AI-powered browser plugins, as well as live proctoring services for assessments requiring real-time invigilation.

The integration requires no installation from participants. Integrity Advocate is available on demand, around the clock, on any device and browser, without plugins, extensions, or system configuration changes.

In 2023, just 0.65% of Integrity Advocate users required support, a figure that reflects the low friction of the platform for learners and the reduced administrative burden for organizations running assessments at scale.

About Integrity Advocate
Integrity Advocate is an online proctoring platform that delivers end-to-end assessment security backed by human review, so every result your program issues is fair, trustworthy, and defensible. Integrity Advocate serves Higher Education, K-12, Certifying Bodies, and Training Providers across the globe.

About D2L
D2L is a leading provider of cloud-based learning technology, offering the Brightspace learning management system to educational institutions and organizations worldwide.

{{post-cta}}

When an organization faces legal scrutiny over a workplace incident, one of the first questions asked is whether employees received proper training. The second question is whether that training can be verified.

Industry regulators and standards bodies set the benchmarks courts use to determine due diligence. If your organization's training practices fall short of what industry associations define as reasonable, that gap becomes a liability. And across multiple industries, those associations are now saying the same thing: online training must include identity verification and proctoring to count.

Here is what five major industry bodies have said, and what it means for your organization.

Why Industry Standards Shape Legal Outcomes

Courts do not invent the definition of "reasonable" from scratch. They look to the standards published by recognized industry organizations to determine whether an employer took all practically reasonable steps to prevent harm.

That means the training practices your industry association recommends are not just best practices. In the event of an incident, they become the benchmark against which your organization is measured.

As more training moves online, those standards increasingly address a specific question: how do you know the right person completed the training, and that they actually participated?

What Five Industry Bodies Require

Human Resources Professionals

HR professionals use online training to address ethics, harassment, violence prevention, and job-specific compliance. In 2017, the Chartered Professionals in Human Resources (CPHR) issued an alert to members conducting online training of regulatory, due diligence, or operational significance:

"Some organizations have already responded by not accepting online training for high-risk activities, while others have mandated the utilization of technology that verifies both the identity and the participation of personnel completing online training that is legally and/or operationally critical. Technology exists that mitigates the issues facing compromised training by verifying both the identity and participation of trainees."

Industry Associations

Organizations in high-risk operational sectors use online training to manage safety and emergency preparedness. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has stated directly that it is vital that employers can verify that the intended personnel received the online training and that they participated in it as intended.

Health and Safety Associations

Health and safety bodies are responsible for defining what counts as reasonable risk control for their sectors. In the IOSH Alberta Industry best practice guidelines, they state that identity verification and proctoring technology is particularly critical when organizations use web-enabled educational materials as part of risk control strategies.

Professional Accreditation Entities

Organizations that issue Continuing Education Units (CEUs) have a direct stake in confirming that the person who registered for training is the person who completed it. The IACET Standard for Continuing Education and Training, category 8.1, states that the provider shall have a process verifying that the learner who registers and participates in the learning event is the same learner who receives IACET CEU.

Standards-Setting Bodies

Standards bodies provide the technical requirements that regulators and industry groups reference. The ANSI/ASSE Z490 standard specifies that each trainee being evaluated shall be properly identified, and that delivery records for each training event shall identify the trainee's participation in the training.

When Regulators Make It Law

Industry standards inform expectations. But in some jurisdictions, those expectations have become legal requirements.

For OSHA training in New York City, only in-person training and actively proctored online training will be accepted. The standard is explicit: unproctored online training does not meet the requirement.

In November 2020, Transport Canada added requirements for online Dangerous Goods training stating that the person's identity has been confirmed prior to or at the time of the training, and that training is completed by the person whose identity has been confirmed prior to or at the time of the assessment.

These are not suggestions. They are compliance thresholds. Organizations that cannot demonstrate identity verification and active participation monitoring for regulated training are exposed.

What This Means for Your Organization

The direction is clear across every sector examined here. Online training without identity verification and participation monitoring is increasingly unacceptable, both to industry bodies and to regulators. The organizations that recognize this now are the ones that will be able to demonstrate due diligence if it ever matters in court.

Integrity Advocate works with organizations across training, certification, and compliance sectors to verify learner identity and confirm participation in online safety training, so the record your organization holds is one you can stand behind.

{{post-cta}}

Corporate training serves many purposes. Meeting regulatory requirements. Building workforce capabilities. Demonstrating due diligence. But across all of these purposes, the same assumption is made: that a training completion record is proof that training happened.

It is not.

A completion record is proof that training was accessed. It is not proof of who accessed it, whether they engaged with it, or whether the person on record is the person who actually completed it. In a regulatory investigation or legal proceeding, that distinction matters enormously.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers Case

PricewaterhouseCoopers is one of the Big Four accounting firms and the second-largest professional services network in the world. In a published regulatory investigation conducted by the Canadian Public Accountability Board, fines of over one million Canadian dollars were assessed after it was found that junior staff, managers, directors, and partners of PwC shared answers to internal training courses on auditing, accounting, and professional independence.

The regulator found that PwC had failed to establish policies and procedures to provide the firm with reasonable assurance that its workforce was completing required training as intended.

This was not a small organization with limited resources. This was one of the most sophisticated professional services firms in the world, with dedicated compliance infrastructure. And still, the internal training program failed to verify that the right people were completing the right training.

If it can happen at PwC, it can happen anywhere.

What Regulators Actually Require

Conversations with private company leaders reveal a consistent gap in understanding. Regulators generally do not stipulate specific oversight requirements for how training must be delivered or verified. They specify the outcome: that the workforce is trained.

The assumption that providing access to online training satisfies that outcome is where organizations get into trouble. Online training records are proof of training accessed, not training completed, and not by whom. Company leadership often has no evidence of individual workers' participation, and no process in place to obtain it.

When a regulatory investigation or legal action follows a workplace incident, that gap becomes the story.

Why Insurance Does Not Solve This Problem

When facing regulatory or legal action, many organizations turn to insurance protection as a backstop. It is worth understanding what insurance does and does not cover.

Insurance policies do not cover bad faith or gross negligence. The argument that company leaders have demonstrated gross negligence rests on the definition established in Hart v. Kline (1941): gross negligence as an indifference to a legal duty of care. An organization that provided training access without any mechanism to verify who completed it, or whether they engaged with it, may find that argument difficult to counter.

A completion record that cannot confirm identity or participation is not a defense. It is evidence of the gap.

What Verified Internal Training Looks Like

Integrity Advocate works with organizations to close that gap by verifying the identity and confirmed participation of internal personnel in every training session. The result is a record that demonstrates not just that training was accessed, but that the right person completed it and was present throughout.

This eliminates the exposure that comes from unverifiable training records in regulatory investigations, legal proceedings, and insurance disputes.

As one client senior leader put it: "How we deliver information to our personnel is indicative of the importance of that information to them."

The way an organization approaches training verification sends a signal about how seriously it takes what it is training people to do. For compliance training, safety training, and any instruction with regulatory or legal weight, that signal matters.

{{post-cta}}