Grammarly Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over AI ‘Expert Review’ Feature
Key Facts
- What: Superhuman, the company behind Grammarly, faces a class action lawsuit alleging unauthorized commercial use of the names, likenesses, and identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, and academics in its now-disabled “Expert Review” AI feature.
- Who: Investigative journalist Julia Angwin, founder of The Markup, is the named plaintiff; the suit also covers others whose identities were used, including Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
- When: The federal lawsuit was filed Wednesday afternoon in the Southern District of New York; Superhuman announced it was discontinuing the feature shortly before the filing.
- Why: The complaint claims Grammarly’s AI presented editing suggestions as if they came from real experts without their consent, violating New York and California right-of-publicity laws.
- Damages: The suit does not specify an amount for Angwin individually but asserts damages for the plaintiff class exceed $5 million.
Grammarly’s parent company Superhuman is facing a class action lawsuit for using the names and identities of prominent writers and academics in its AI-powered “Expert Review” feature without their permission. The suit, filed Wednesday in federal court in New York, was brought by award-winning investigative journalist Julia Angwin on behalf of herself and others similarly affected. Superhuman had already announced it would disable the controversial feature following public backlash.
The “Expert Review” tool, introduced last year as part of a suite of AI widgets, allowed users to receive writing critiques framed as coming from well-known figures such as Angwin, Stephen King, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. While the product included a disclaimer that the named individuals had not endorsed or directly participated in the tool’s development, critics argued the feature still misappropriated their professional reputations and voices. Many writers expressed frustration that their names and perceived expertise were being leveraged to sell Grammarly’s services.
According to the complaint, the feature violated longstanding laws in New York and California prohibiting the commercial use of a person’s name and likeness without consent. Angwin’s attorney, Peter Romer-Friedman, told WIRED the case is legally straightforward. “Legally, we think it’s a pretty straightforward case,” he said. The suit argues that Superhuman profited by trading on the reputations of hundreds of journalists, authors, editors, and even lawyers, attributing words and advice to them that they never provided.
Backlash and Feature Discontinuation
Superhuman moved quickly to pull the feature after receiving criticism from writers and the public. In a statement to WIRED, Ailian Gan, Superhuman’s director of product management, said the company had decided to disable “Expert Review” while reimagining it to give experts real control over their representation. “We built the agent to help users tap into the insights of thought leaders and experts and to give experts new ways to share their knowledge and reach new audiences,” Gan said. “Based on the feedback we’ve received, we clearly missed the mark. We are sorry and will do things differently going forward.”
Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra also addressed the decision on LinkedIn, acknowledging “valid critical feedback from experts who are concerned that the agent misrepresented their voices.”
The backlash intensified after reports that the AI-generated suggestions often failed to reflect the actual style or expertise of the named individuals. Angwin told WIRED she first learned about the feature from the tech newsletter Platformer and was stunned. “You know, deepfakes are something I always think celebrities are getting caught up in, not regular journalists,” she said. She described the AI version of herself as not only inaccurate but actively detrimental, with suggestions that made text harder to understand or introduced irrelevant ideas. “It felt very scattershot to me,” Angwin said. “I was surprised at how bad it was.”
Legal and Ethical Questions
The lawsuit highlights growing tension around the use of real people’s identities in generative AI products. Angwin, a New York Times opinion writer who has long covered Silicon Valley’s erosion of privacy, argues in the complaint that “contrary to the apparent belief of some tech companies, it is unlawful to appropriate peoples’ names and identities for commercial purposes, whether those people are famous or not.”
The suit seeks to stop Grammarly and Superhuman from continuing to use these identities and from attributing false statements or advice to the individuals. It does not request a specific damages figure for Angwin but claims the total damages for the class exceed $5 million.
Legal experts and observers have noted that the case could test the boundaries of right-of-publicity laws in the age of AI. Similar concerns have been raised across the industry as companies experiment with “AI agents” or personas based on real individuals. Reports indicate the feature drew ire not only from living professionals but also raised questions about the use of identities of recently deceased scholars.
Impact on Writers, Users, and the AI Industry
For professional writers and journalists, the episode underscores fears that years or decades of work building a reputation can be co-opted by AI companies for commercial gain without consent or compensation. Angwin’s attorney emphasized this broader societal concern: many professionals are seeing their skills and identities appropriated without permission.
Grammarly users who relied on the “Expert Review” feature may now face uncertainty as the tool is taken offline. While the company says it plans to reimagine the feature with greater respect for experts’ control, it remains unclear what form a revised version might take or when it could return.
The controversy arrives as the broader AI industry grapples with questions of consent, intellectual property, and digital identity. Multiple reports have highlighted similar backlash against other AI tools that invoke real people’s personas, suggesting this case could influence how companies approach “expert” or celebrity-linked AI features going forward.
What’s Next
Superhuman has not provided a timeline for when or if a revised “Expert Review” feature might be reintroduced. The class action lawsuit will now proceed through the federal court system in the Southern District of New York. Outcomes could include financial settlements, changes to product practices, or clearer industry standards around the use of personal identities in AI.
For developers and AI companies, the case serves as a reminder that disclaimers alone may not shield products from right-of-publicity claims when real names and likenesses are used for commercial purposes. Legal observers expect increased scrutiny of similar features across writing assistants, creative tools, and other AI applications.
Angwin and her legal team say the suit aims not only to address her specific situation but to set a precedent that protects professionals whose reputations are being digitized without consent.
Sources
- WIRED: Grammarly Is Facing a Class Action Lawsuit Over Its AI ‘Expert Review’ Feature
- La Cartita: Grammarly Faces Backlash for Unauthorized Use of Experts’ Identities in New AI Feature
- eWeek: Grammarly’s AI Expert Review Sparks Backlash Over Consent
- Futurism: Grammarly Is Pulling Down Its Explosively Controversial Feature That Impersonates Writers Without Their Permission
- AI Expert Magazine: Grammarly's AI 'Expert Review' Sparks Ethics Firestorm