Grammarly Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Use of Names in AI 'Expert Review' Feature
Key Takeaways
- ▸Superhuman/Grammarly is being sued for misappropriating the names and identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, and editors in its AI 'Expert Review' feature without consent
- ▸The class action lawsuit, led by investigative journalist Julia Angwin, seeks damages exceeding $5 million and invokes laws prohibiting commercial use of names and likenesses without permission
- ▸Superhuman has already disabled the feature following public backlash, acknowledging it 'missed the mark' and committing to a redesigned version with explicit expert consent
Summary
Superhuman, the company behind writing software Grammarly, is facing a federal class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York over its AI-powered "Expert Review" feature, which presented editing suggestions as if they came from real authors, journalists, and academics without their consent. Award-winning investigative journalist Julia Angwin, who founded The Markup, is the named plaintiff in the suit, which seeks damages exceeding $5 million on behalf of hundreds of individuals whose names and identities were allegedly misappropriated, including Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
The lawsuit argues that Superhuman violated long-standing laws in New York and California prohibiting the commercial use of a person's name and likeness without permission. While the feature included a disclaimer that cited individuals had not endorsed the tool, critics argued that using their names and synthesizing their work without consent constituted unauthorized appropriation. The complaint comes shortly after Superhuman announced it would discontinue the feature, with product director Ailian Gan stating the company "clearly missed the mark" and apologizing for the misstep.
Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra defended the company's position, calling the claims "without merit" while acknowledging plans to develop a new version that provides "significantly more benefit to both users and experts" with greater expert control over representation.
Editorial Opinion
The Grammarly lawsuit highlights a critical tension in generative AI development: the ability to synthesize vast amounts of public data versus the ethical and legal obligations to the individuals whose work and identities are being leveraged. While the company's quick decision to discontinue the feature and acknowledge the misstep deserves credit, it underscores a broader pattern where AI companies launch features first and ask permission later—a practice that appears increasingly untenable legally and ethically. This case may set important precedent for how AI companies must approach the use of real people's identities in AI-generated outputs.
