Analysis of primary documents revealed many rules that plagiarism software's website implements that contradicts the core values of academic integrity - the very thing it promises to encourage. This includes not acknowledging its users for their comments, ideas, inputs through feedback to the website, it states that it holds the rights to build on or use those ideas in any way for its business including monetary benefits. The fact that it has no moral obligation to credit the users goes against why plagiarism is seen as problematic(not acknowledging and crediting appropriately). Another serious impact is that of the aggregation of student personal data including device id, names, demographic data and educational record to help in grading a student's work. Students whose first language is not English for example are falsely accused of presenting plagiarised work. These instances highlight the encoded biases and data politics that amplify the existing biases that see certain students to inherently commit cheating. Even if the students are cleared to have not committed plagiarism it still is part of their academic record. This storage of personal data cannot be withdrawn by students but only by the institute and the website. Therefore students who have been wronged are left with no opt out option and at higher risk of their work being marked as with higher probability of plagiarised content. Streamlining assessments and narrowing the standards that are to be met becomes a way to normalise imposed ideals. Ideals could be expectations of a certain way/style of writing as well and students could be accused if they deviate from a narrow set of standards