Grammarly is under legal fire after launching an AI feature that mimicked feedback from well-known writers and experts without their permission.
The tool, called “Expert Review,” claimed to simulate critiques from figures like novelist Stephen King, scientist Carl Sagan, and tech journalist Kara Swisher. Now journalist Julia Angwin has filed a class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating privacy and publicity rights by using people’s names to sell the feature.
Angwin filed the case against Superhuman, the parent company that owns Grammarly, arguing that the platform created AI versions of hundreds of experts without consent. A class action would allow other affected writers and thinkers to join the lawsuit if they were also included in the feature.
“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,” Angwin said in a statement.
The controversy carries a layer of irony. Angwin built much of her career investigating how tech companies handle privacy and user data. Other critics of artificial intelligence, including AI ethicist Timnit Gebru, also appeared in Grammarly’s Expert Review lineup without approval.
The feature was available only to Grammarly subscribers paying $144 per year. However, early tests suggested the simulated feedback was far from groundbreaking.
Tech newsletter Platformer founder Casey Newton tested the tool by submitting one of his articles. Grammarly’s AI imitation of Kara Swisher responded with generic feedback, including this suggestion: “Could you briefly compare how daily AI users versus AI skeptics articulate risk, creating a through-line readers can follow?”
Newton later shared the AI-generated comment with the real Kara Swisher.
“You rapacious information and identity thieves better get ready for me to go full McConaughey on you,” Swisher texted Newton, referring to Grammarly. “Also, you suck.”
Following the backlash, Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra announced on LinkedIn that Grammarly disabled the Expert Review feature. He also apologized but defended the broader idea behind it.
“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.”
