Full Breakdown
Legal Challenge Against Grammarly's AI Feature Raises Ethical Concerns
3/13/2026, 1:24:30 PM
Overview of the Controversy
Grammarly, the writing assistant developed by Superhuman, is facing a class-action lawsuit filed by investigative journalist Julia Angwin. The lawsuit centers on Grammarly's recently launched "Expert Review" feature, which utilized the names and identities of numerous authors and journalists, including Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson, to provide AI-generated editing suggestions without their consent. The suit alleges violations of privacy and publicity rights, claiming damages exceeding $5 million.
Background of the Expert Review Feature
Launched in late 2025, the "Expert Review" feature aimed to enhance user writing by simulating feedback from well-known figures in literature and academia. However, it quickly drew backlash for its lack of consent from the individuals whose identities were used. Critics described the tool as a form of "digital impersonation," with many affected individuals expressing concern over the ethical implications of their names being used in a commercial context without permission.
Key Figures Involved
- Julia Angwin: Lead plaintiff and investigative journalist, known for her work on technology and privacy issues.
- Shishir Mehrotra: CEO of Superhuman, who publicly apologized for the feature's shortcomings.
- Timnit Gebru: AI ethicist whose identity was also used without consent, highlighting the irony given her advocacy for responsible AI practices.
Legal Basis of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, argues that the use of individuals' names and likenesses for commercial purposes without consent violates both California and New York laws. Angwin's attorney, Peter Romer-Friedman, emphasized that the case is straightforward, focusing on the unauthorized commercial use of identities.
Official Statements & Responses
In response to the backlash, Superhuman announced the discontinuation of the "Expert Review" feature. Mehrotra acknowledged the criticism, stating, “We received valid critical feedback from experts who are concerned that the agent misrepresented their voices.” He expressed a commitment to reimagine the feature to ensure that experts have control over their representation.
Criticism & Opposition
Critics argue that the feature not only misappropriated identities but also diluted the value of the reputations of the individuals involved. Many writers, including Angwin, expressed distress over the unauthorized use of their expertise, with Angwin stating, “I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise.” The backlash has raised broader concerns about the ethical implications of AI technologies that utilize real identities without consent.
Technical and Quality Concerns
Testing of the "Expert Review" feature revealed that the AI-generated feedback often lacked the distinctive style and insight characteristic of the referenced experts. For instance, Casey Newton, another journalist affected by the feature, found the feedback he received to be generic and unreflective of Kara Swisher's actual editorial voice.
What's Next
As the lawsuit progresses, it could set important legal precedents regarding the use of personal identities in AI applications. The outcome may influence how AI companies approach consent and representation in their products, potentially leading to stricter regulations and ethical standards in the industry.
Conclusion
The legal challenge against Grammarly underscores the growing tensions between technological innovation and personal rights. As AI continues to evolve, the implications of using real identities in commercial products will likely come under increased scrutiny, prompting a reevaluation of ethical practices in the tech industry.
