Grammarly Sued Over AI Feature Using Journalists' Identities Without Consent
Key Facts
- Journalist Julia Angwin filed a class-action lawsuit Wednesday in the Southern District of New York against Grammarly and its owner Superhuman.
- The suit alleges Grammarly’s “Expert Review” feature misappropriated the names, likenesses, and professional identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors for commercial gain without their permission.
- Grammarly has discontinued the Expert Review feature following public backlash, stating it will reimagine the tool to give experts control over their representation.
- The feature generated AI writing feedback that invoked real experts’ names and credentials, often with only a buried disclaimer stating the references were for informational purposes only and did not indicate affiliation or endorsement.
- Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra has publicly apologized, and the company previously launched an opt-out inbox for affected writers.
Lead paragraph
Journalist and author Julia Angwin filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Grammarly and its parent company Superhuman on Wednesday, accusing the AI writing assistant of unlawfully using her name and the identities of hundreds of other writers to market and power its “Expert Review” feature without obtaining consent. The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, claims the practice violated the experts’ privacy and publicity rights by exploiting their professional reputations for commercial purposes. Grammarly has since disabled the controversial feature amid widespread criticism, with the company stating it plans to rebuild the tool with greater respect for individual control.
What Was the Expert Review Feature?
According to multiple reports, Grammarly’s Expert Review was promoted as an AI-powered enhancement that provided specialized writing suggestions styled after the approaches of recognized experts in various fields. The system reportedly invoked real journalists, authors, and editors by name — including Julia Angwin — suggesting revisions “in the style of” or drawing on the purported expertise of these individuals.
Many of those named had no prior knowledge that their identities were being used. Angwin reportedly learned of her inclusion after being contacted by Casey Newton, another journalist whose name appeared in the feature. Newton had previously helped uncover the scope of the issue through his work at Platformer.
The feature included a legal disclaimer buried in documentation that stated the expert references were “for informational purposes only” and did not constitute affiliation or endorsement by the named individuals. Critics argue this disclaimer was insufficient to protect the publicity rights of those whose names and professional brands were being leveraged to make the product appear more authoritative and useful.
The Lawsuit and Allegations
The class-action complaint challenges Grammarly’s “misappropriation of the names and identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors to earn profits for Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman,” according to the filing. It alleges violations of privacy and publicity laws that prohibit the unauthorized commercial use of someone’s identity.
Angwin is suing on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The suit claims the practice allowed Grammarly to profit by enhancing the perceived value of its AI product through association with respected professionals who had not agreed to participate.
This is not the first time AI companies have faced scrutiny for using real people’s work or identities without clear permission. The case highlights growing tension between rapid AI product development and established legal protections around name, image, and likeness (often referred to as NIL or publicity rights).
Grammarly’s Response and Decision to Disable the Feature
In response to the backlash, Superhuman — which owns Grammarly — announced it would disable Expert Review. Ailian Gan, Superhuman’s director for product management, told WIRED: “After careful consideration, we have decided to disable Expert Review as we reimagine the feature to make it more useful for users, while giving experts real control over how they want to be represented—or not represented at all.”
Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra also addressed the controversy in a LinkedIn post, apologizing and expressing hope for a future where “experts choose to participate, shape how their knowledge is represented, and control their business model.”
The company had previously attempted to address concerns by creating an email inbox for writers to opt out. However, it ultimately acknowledged that this measure did not go far enough, especially since many experts were never informed of their inclusion in the first place.
Broader Industry Implications
The Grammarly controversy arrives at a time when AI writing tools are under intense examination for their training practices, data sourcing, and use of human-generated content. While many large language models are trained on vast public datasets, the direct use of identifiable individuals’ names and professional personas for product marketing raises distinct legal and ethical questions.
For developers building AI products, the case underscores the importance of obtaining explicit consent when associating real people with AI outputs or recommendations. It also illustrates the reputational risks of launching features that leverage personal brands without prior agreement.
Writers and journalists, whose bylines and expertise constitute significant professional capital, may become more wary of how their names appear in AI tools. Some observers suggest the episode could accelerate calls for clearer industry standards or regulation around the commercial use of personal identity in generative AI systems.
Impact on Users and Developers
For everyday Grammarly users, the removal of Expert Review means the loss of a feature that promised more sophisticated, domain-specific writing guidance. However, many in the writing community have welcomed the decision, viewing the unauthorized use of experts’ identities as an overreach.
Developers integrating similar “expert” or “persona-based” AI features may now need to implement more robust consent mechanisms, transparent disclosure practices, and opt-in systems from the outset. The incident serves as a cautionary tale about prioritizing speed to market over legal and ethical considerations around personal data and identity.
The class-action status of the lawsuit could also have financial implications for Superhuman and Grammarly if the court certifies the class and ultimately finds in favor of the plaintiffs. While the full scope of potential damages is not yet public, cases involving unauthorized use of likeness often seek compensation for unjust enrichment and statutory penalties.
What’s Next
Grammarly has not provided a specific timeline for when or whether a revised version of Expert Review might return. The company says it is reimagining the feature to ensure experts have genuine control over their participation and representation.
The lawsuit will proceed in federal court in New York. Its outcome could set a precedent for how courts interpret publicity rights in the context of AI-generated content and product features that reference real individuals.
Legal experts will be watching to see whether the buried disclaimer is deemed sufficient to shield the company or whether explicit consent is required when commercial products directly invoke someone’s professional identity.
For the AI industry more broadly, the case adds to a growing list of challenges around consent, attribution, and the boundaries between public information and protected personal brand rights.
Sources
- Grammarly Is Facing a Class Action Lawsuit Over Its AI ‘Expert Review’ Feature | WIRED
- Grammarly ditches "Expert Review" after expert rebellion and class action suit
- Grammarly Caught Using Real Identities Without Consent
- Grammarly Is Pulling Down Its Explosively Controversial Feature That Impersonates Writers Without Their Permission
- The Verge original coverage