Grammarly sued over Expert Review feature using writers' identities without consent
Grammarly's Expert Review feature used the names and supposed professional styles of real writers and academics—including Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan—to provide AI-generated editing feedback to paying customers without consent. Journalist Julia Angwin filed a class-action lawsuit against Superhuman, Grammarly's parent company, alleging unauthorized commercial use of identities and violation of privacy laws, with over 50 people joining the action.
What happened
Grammarly's Expert Review feature generated editing suggestions purportedly inspired by the style of real writers and academics including Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Julia Angwin, and David Abulafia. The feature did not obtain consent from these individuals to use their names or likenesses, and presented AI-generated feedback as if it came from them. For $12 a month, customers could receive editing advice attributed to these real people, with Grammarly telling users it was 'applying ideas from' the selected expert.
Reported impact
Julia Angwin, a New York Times opinion contributor and investigative journalist, filed a class-action lawsuit in the southern district of New York against Superhuman, Grammarly's parent company, arguing that using a person's name for commercial gain without permission is unlawful. Over 40 people contacted Angwin's legal team within 24 hours of the suit being filed, expressing interest in joining the class action. The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $5 million and alleges violations of California and New York privacy laws that ban the use of a person's name or likeness for advertising or business purposes without written consent.
Angwin described the misuse of her editing skills as an existential threat to her livelihood, noting that the AI feature provided editing suggestions she would never make and misrepresented her professional standards. Several writers publicly expressed concerns about the feature, with tech journalist Casey Newton stating that Grammarly had 'curated a list of real people, gave its models free rein to hallucinate plausible-sounding advice on their behalf, and put it all behind a subscription.'
Index analysis
The feature exemplifies the use of real individuals' identities and professional reputations to monetize AI outputs without consent. Grammarly generated plausible-sounding but unvetted advice attributed to named experts, creating a false impression of endorsement or involvement. The scale of the impact became apparent when over 50 people had contacted the plaintiff's legal team by the time the suit was filed, suggesting widespread unauthorized use of writers' and academics' identities.
Governance controls
Grammarly disabled the Expert Review feature after public backlash and legal action. The company initially offered an opt-out mechanism rather than obtaining prior consent, according to reporting that Grammarly would 'keep using authors' identities without permission unless they opt out.'
Classification
Sources and evidence
Sources not yet published
This record was researched and written by the Index from original reporting. Its sources are still being verified by an editor, and they are listed here once that check is complete. Until then the record carries no reviewer.