Grammarly Removes AI Expert Review Feature After Legal Backlash Over Unauthorized Use of Writers' Identities
Key Takeaways
- ▸Grammarly disabled the Expert Review feature after facing a class-action lawsuit from writers whose identities were used without consent to train AI editing suggestions
- ▸The lawsuit, led by investigative journalist Julia Angwin, seeks over $5 million in damages and has already attracted interest from over 40 additional plaintiffs
- ▸The controversy highlights ongoing tensions around generative AI's use of real people's likenesses and expertise for commercial purposes without explicit permission
Summary
Grammarly has disabled its controversial Expert Review feature, which used generative AI to produce editing suggestions mimicking the styles of prominent writers and academics including Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan—without their consent. The removal comes following a class-action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York by investigative journalist Julia Angwin and others, arguing that using real people's names for commercial gain without permission violates their rights and seeking over $5 million in damages. The feature, launched as part of Grammarly's 2024 expansion into generative AI capabilities, generated significant backlash from the writing community, with numerous featured individuals expressing concern about the unauthorized monetization of their identities and professional expertise. Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra apologized for the "misrepresentation" while claiming the legal claims are "without merit," stating the feature had minimal usage before being taken down for redesign.
- Grammarly's parent company Superhuman apologized for the misrepresentation but maintains the legal claims lack merit
Editorial Opinion
The Grammarly controversy exposes a critical gap in how generative AI companies handle the personas and professional identities of real people. While the company's apology suggests genuine recognition of wrongdoing, the post-hoc removal of the feature and defensive legal posture underscore how easily companies can push boundaries when regulations remain unclear. This case will likely become a precedent for how AI firms must approach using real names and professional styles in their products, setting expectations that consent and compensation should be non-negotiable, not afterthoughts.
