Headline:
Writer Sues Grammarly for Using Her Identity in AI ‘Expert Review’ Without Consent
Key Facts
- What: Journalist Julia Angwin filed a class action lawsuit against Superhuman, Grammarly’s parent company, alleging violation of privacy and publicity rights by using her name and those of other writers in an AI feature that simulated expert editorial feedback.
- Feature: “Expert Review” allowed paid subscribers to receive AI-generated editing suggestions presented as critiques from figures including Stephen King, Carl Sagan, Kara Swisher, Timnit Gebru, and Julia Angwin herself.
- Pricing: Available only to subscribers paying $144 per year.
- Response: Grammarly has disabled the “Expert Review” feature; Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra issued an apology while defending the underlying concept.
- Impact: The case highlights growing tensions around unauthorized use of personal identity and likeness in commercial AI products.
Lead paragraph
A prominent investigative journalist has filed a class action lawsuit against the company behind Grammarly after discovering the popular writing tool was selling AI-generated feedback that impersonated her and hundreds of other writers and experts without their permission. Julia Angwin, who has spent her career exposing tech’s impact on privacy, learned her name was being used in Grammarly’s short-lived “Expert Review” feature, which promised users editorial advice styled as if it came directly from literary and technical luminaries. The lawsuit accuses Superhuman of violating publicity and privacy rights by commercially exploiting these individuals’ identities to market a $144-a-year subscription service.
The Controversial Launch
Grammarly released the “Expert Review” feature last week, positioning it as an advanced AI capability that could simulate thoughtful editorial feedback. Users paying the $144 annual subscription were told they could receive critiques that felt as if they came from novelist Stephen King, the late scientist Carl Sagan, tech journalist Kara Swisher, AI ethicist Timnit Gebru, or Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Julia Angwin.
According to the lawsuit and multiple reports, Grammarly did not obtain consent from any of the named experts before incorporating their names and personas into the product. The feature used AI to generate responses that mimicked the tone or perspective associated with each expert, presenting the output as coming from that individual.
The situation carries particular irony given Angwin’s decades-long work investigating technology companies’ effects on personal privacy. As reported by TechCrunch, Angwin stated: “I have worked for decades honing my skills as a writer and editor, and I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise.”
Testing the Feature
Casey Newton, founder and editor of the tech newsletter Platformer, tested the tool by feeding one of his own articles into Grammarly’s Expert Review. He received feedback presented as coming from Kara Swisher. The AI-generated response read: “Could you briefly compare how daily AI users versus AI skeptics articulate risk, creating a through-line readers can follow?”
Newton described the feedback as so generic that it raised questions about why Grammarly went to the effort of associating specific writers’ names with the output. He forwarded the AI-generated “Swisher” comment to the real Kara Swisher, who responded sharply. Swisher texted Newton: “You rapacious information and identity thieves better get ready for me to go full McConaughey on you. Also, you suck.”
Several other journalists and academics, including current staff at The Verge, were also listed among the “experts” whose identities were used without permission.
Grammarly’s Response and CEO Defense
Following public backlash and the filing of the lawsuit, Grammarly disabled the Expert Review feature. Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra addressed the decision in a LinkedIn post, offering an apology while simultaneously defending the product vision.
“Imagine your professor sharpening your essay, your sales leader reshaping a customer pitch, a thoughtful critic challenging your arguments, or a leading expert elevating your proposal,” Mehrotra wrote. “For experts, this is a chance to build that same ubiquitous bond with users, much like Grammarly has.”
The company had previously launched an email inbox allowing writers and academics to request removal from the feature, but it ultimately chose to shut the capability down entirely after the controversy intensified.
Broader Implications for AI and Identity
The lawsuit raises significant legal questions about the commercial use of individuals’ names, likenesses, and professional reputations in generative AI products. The class action complaint argues that Superhuman violated laws prohibiting the use of someone’s identity for commercial purposes without consent.
This case arrives amid heightened scrutiny of how AI companies train on and replicate human expertise, voices, and identities. Unlike training data scraped from public web content, the Expert Review feature directly associated living (and deceased) individuals’ names with AI output in a way that suggested personal endorsement or involvement.
The feature’s rapid launch and equally rapid removal underscore the current tension in the AI industry between rapid product experimentation and established legal protections around publicity rights, especially for professional writers and public intellectuals whose reputations are central to their livelihoods.
Impact on Writers, Developers, and the Industry
For writers and creators, the incident serves as a stark example of how their professional identities can be co-opted to add perceived value to commercial AI tools. Angwin’s decision to sue sends a clear message that consent matters, even — or especially — when the technology is marketed as helpful writing assistance.
“I have worked for decades honing my skills as a writer and editor, and I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise.”
— Julia Angwin, in her statement about the Grammarly lawsuit
The $144 annual price point for access to these “expert” simulations positioned the feature as a premium offering, directly monetizing the uncompensated and unpermitted use of others’ reputations. This stands in contrast to AI companies that have faced criticism for training on copyrighted material but adds a new dimension of identity appropriation.
The case also highlights competitive pressures in the AI writing assistance market. Grammarly, long a leader in grammar and style checking, has been racing to add generative AI capabilities to compete with newer entrants and broader tools from companies like OpenAI and Microsoft. The Expert Review feature represented an attempt to differentiate through personality and perceived expertise, but the execution without consent has now created significant legal and reputational risk.
What’s Next
The class action lawsuit allows other affected writers to join Angwin’s case against Superhuman. Legal experts will be watching closely to see how courts interpret publicity rights in the context of AI-generated content that uses real names but does not directly copy protected creative works.
Grammarly and Superhuman have not indicated whether they plan to relaunch a similar feature with proper licensing or consent mechanisms. The company’s swift decision to disable the tool suggests an attempt to contain damage, but the lawsuit is likely to proceed.
For the broader AI industry, the controversy adds to ongoing debates about ethical data use, consent, and compensation for individuals whose skills and reputations are being simulated by artificial intelligence. As tools increasingly promise to “channel” experts, the legal boundaries around such impersonation are being tested in real time.
This case may influence how other AI companies approach the use of recognizable names and personas in consumer products going forward, particularly those targeting creative professionals.
Sources
- A writer is suing Grammarly for turning her and other authors into ‘AI editors’ without consent
- Grammarly Is Facing a Class Action Lawsuit Over Its AI ‘Expert Review’ Feature
- One of Grammarly’s ‘experts’ is suing the company over its identity-stealing AI feature
- Grammarly pulls AI tool mimicking Stephen King and other writers
- Grammarly removes AI feature which used real authors' identities, faces class action lawsuit
- Grammarly Sued Over AI Feature That Used Real Experts’ Names Without Consent