This page provides Avant’s statement regarding the litigation filed by ACTFL against Avant Assessment and the Global Seal of Biliteracy, answers to frequently asked questions, and a more detailed article by David Bong.
Original Litigation Statement
Avant is dismayed that ACTFL has filed litigation against Avant and the Global Seal of Biliteracy. ACTFL is claiming that Avant and Global Seal must not make reference to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines.
Avant is proud to support language learning and to help educators understand how our assessments align with widely recognized proficiency standards. Avant references the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, a framework developed with federal funding to serve as an industry benchmark, so that educators and institutions can understand how our scoring aligns with widely adopted expectations. The Guidelines were created to be broadly used by schools and districts. Many others, both for-profit and nonprofit, reference them as well, and describe their tests and learning materials as aligned with them. Many states and districts will not consider tests unless they are aligned with the Guidelines.
ACTFL takes the position on its website that only assessments from ACTFL or Language Testing International can be aligned with the Guidelines. As far as we know, that is their only basis for arguing in the litigation that Avant’s tests are not aligned. ACTFL also asserts that it is trademark infringement for Avant and Global Seal to refer to the Guidelines as the “ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines,” but that is the name by which they are known.
We believe no single organization should hold a monopoly over alignment with a de facto public standard. Our goal is to provide high-quality assessments that support informed decisions about teaching and learning, not to suggest affiliation or endorsement by ACTFL. While ACTFL has initiated this litigation, Avant and Global Seal believe the claims are unfounded and will vigorously defend their position. Avant, Global Seal, and ACTFL share important goals in promoting language education, and Avant and Global Seal believe the resources of all three organizations would be better spent supporting students and educators rather than on litigation. We remain committed to transparency, integrity, and a focus on student success.
Avant’s Position on ACTFL’s Lawsuit
By David Bong· September 8, 2026
Originally published on LinkedIn
Overview
On January 30, 2026, ACTFL filed a lawsuit against Avant Assessment and the Global Seal of Biliteracy. The lawsuit claims that Avant’s references to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and its description of STAMP assessments as aligned to those Guidelines constitute a violation by Avant of some intellectual property right of ACTFL.
ACTFL claims sole ownership of the Guidelines and alleges they were developed exclusively for use with ACTFL’s own for-profit assessments which are marketed and delivered by Language Testing International (LTI), a Samsung company.
ACTFL states on its website that “Only official ACTFL tests are aligned to the Guidelines.” Beyond the trademark issues, ACTFL is asking the Court to stop Avant and the Global Seal from using or referring to the Guidelines — and has demanded that Avant stop using even the proficiency terms “Novice,” “Intermediate,” and “Advanced.” ACTFL is also seeking significant monetary relief, including all profits Avant has earned that it attributes to the alleged infringement, potentially tripled by the court.
Why the History Matters
The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines did not originate with ACTFL. The underlying framework traces back to U.S. government work in the 1950s, when the Foreign Service Institute and other federal agencies developed language proficiency scales. Beginning around 1970, Educational Testing Service (ETS) adapted that federal scale for educational use through a federally funded project.
The resulting educational scale drew on the government proficiency system, the ETS Common Yardstick work, and subsequent refinements involving the federal language-testing community and ACTFL. A 1982 training document by Pardee Lowe Jr. and Judith Liskin-Gasparro described the educational oral-proficiency scale as the “American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages/Educational Testing Service (ACTFL/ETS) scale.
This scale was developed through taxpayer funded grants to help advance language education.
STAMP — STAndards-based Measurement of Proficiency — was developed in the late 1990s at the University of Oregon’s Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS), also with federal support. Over subsequent years, CASLS received additional federal grants supporting the development, expansion, and implementation of technology-based proficiency assessments related to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines.
Avant was formed in 2001 to bring STAMP and that university research into schools to support the adoption and use of the Proficiency Guidelines in language programs. The University of Oregon Foundation remains a part owner of `Avant today.
ACTFL Previously Endorsed Broad Use of the Guidelines
When CASLS was developing STAMP in the late 1990s, CASLS Director, Dr. Carl Falsgraf met with then-ACTFL Executive Director Ed Scebold and specifically asked whether describing STAMP as “aligned with the ACTFL Guidelines” was appropriate. Scebold agreed this was a fair description and noted that the Guidelines had been developed with grant funding as a contribution to the entire field.
Nearly two decades later, in 2017, Avant felt compelled to object to ACTFL about statements by some LTI sales personnel that only ACTFL tests could measure proficiency. In response to Avant’s complaints ACTFL’s outside counsel Hugh Webster stated in a February 2, 2018, teleconference:
“These Proficiency Guidelines were prepared by ACTFL, they’re published, they’re out there, anyone can use them…. Anyone can look at those standards and make assessments based on them.”
ACTFL’s Executive Director at the time, Marty Abbott, subsequently confirmed in writing that the Guidelines had been “placed in the public domain for use by the language profession.” These assurances reinforced Avant’s understanding that independent organizations could accurately describe their assessments as aligned to the Guidelines, without claiming to issue official ACTFL tests or ratings. She also addressed Avant’s complaints concerning actions of LTI’s sales staff:
“ACTFL does not condone false advertising, and I have already addressed this with LTI and with ACTFL staff.”
Abbott invited Avant to bring future statements by LTI personnel that Avant believed were “false or misleading” to her attention. She also acknowledged that there were multiple competitors in the field and expressed an interest in continued collaboration between ACTFL and Avant.
What Changed — and What’s at Stake
In June 2025, ACTFL reversed course, demanding Avant remove all references to ACTFL from its materials. Avant complied promptly, removing all references on our website except those that stated that STAMP aligns to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines — a factually accurate description.
ACTFL then demanded Avant remove the proficiency-level terms “Novice,” “Intermediate,” and “Advanced.” Avant was not willing to comply with such an egregious demand given that these level terms have been used for many decades, even before the Proficiency Guidelines were created. In November 2025, ACTFL’s Executive Director contacted a school district that had selected Avant over ACTFL’s exclusive licensee, LTI, in a competitive procurement.
He demanded that the award be canceled on the grounds that Avant is “not authorized” to use the Guidelines commercially. The district refuted his demand and contracted with Avant.
Avant does not dispute ACTFL’s right to control its own official tests and trademarks. What Avant disputes is ACTFL’s extreme claim that only ACTFL and LTI may describe their assessments as aligned to the published Guidelines.
If that position prevails, schools and states will have no assessment options besides LTI when their policies require ACTFL alignment; independent assessments will be unable to explain how their results relate to familiar proficiency levels; and assessments for the many heritage, Indigenous, and less commonly taught languages that Avant uniquely offers could face higher barriers to recognition.
This would constitute a monopoly takeover by ACTFL and LTI of any language-testing market that references the Guidelines.
This case raises questions that matter well beyond Avant. A national proficiency framework functions as a shared professional language — used by teachers, schools, states, researchers, teacher training consultants, curriculum providers, assessment providers, state seal of biliteracy programs, and credentialing bodies alike.
Avant believes that protecting ACTFL’s legitimate trademarks and official ratings should not require granting one organization and its exclusive commercial partner control over how the entire language profession uses a framework built over decades through government work, federally funded research, and contributions from academics and practitioners across the field.
Why Is ACTFL Suing the Global Seal of Biliteracy?
ACTFL has also sued the Global Seal of Biliteracy, an assessment-neutral credential founded by Avant in 2018 to expand access to language proficiency recognition. Although Avant provides financial and operational support, the Global Seal operates with its own Board of Advisors, that determines which assessments may be used to qualify learners for the Global Seal.
The Global Seal is part of the lawsuit because it references the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines to explain its credential requirements — a practical necessity, since any credential must identify the proficiency framework on which it is based. The Global Seal’s position is that accurately naming that framework does not imply that ACTFL sponsors or endorses the credential.
Notably, more than 10,000 Global Seals have been awarded to learners who qualified using ACTFL/LTI assessments, with Avant funding the cost of those credentials.
The lawsuit raises broader questions for the field: can an independent credentialing organization reference a widely recognized proficiency framework to recognize proficiency demonstrated through assessments from multiple providers? Can the field develop standards that help us all develop better products and services, or will those standards be privatized? Can litigation be used to shut down the development of ever-better tests and services by competitors to ACTFL’s for-profit tests?
Carl Falsgraf addressed many of these same issues in a letter that he sent to each member of the ACTFL Board of Directors in July. I am sharing this link to it so that you can see his statement: Carl Falsgraf Letter to ACTFL Board 7-10-26
I welcome your comments and feedback.