Grammarly owner Superhuman is facing a proposed class action after journalist Julia Angwin alleged the company used her name and the identities of other writers, journalists, and academics in its AI-powered Expert Review feature without consent. The complaint argues that the paid tool commercially appropriated real people’s identities by presenting AI-generated writing feedback as if it came from them.
TL;DR
- Journalist Julia Angwin has filed a proposed class action against Superhuman, Grammarly’s owner.
- The suit alleges Grammarly used writers’ and experts’ names in its Expert Review feature without permission.
- Grammarly has disabled the feature, apologized for falling short, and said it will defend against the claims.
What The Lawsuit Alleges
According to the complaint summary released by Angwin’s counsel, Grammarly launched Expert Review in August 2025 and offered users AI-generated feedback framed around recognizable authors, journalists, editors, and other public figures. The lawsuit says those people never consented to have their names and identities used to market or power the feature.
The proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It seeks to stop any further unauthorized use of the affected experts’ names and identities and to secure compensation for what the complaint describes as commercial misuse.
Why Grammarly Pulled The Feature
The lawsuit arrived after days of criticism over Expert Review. Superhuman confirmed that it disabled the feature and said it would rethink the product so experts would have real control over whether and how they are represented. CEO Shishir Mehrotra also acknowledged that the company fell short, even as Superhuman later said the legal claims are without merit and that it plans to fight them.
Topics For More Insights
Why This Matters
The dispute goes beyond one feature rollback. It raises a larger question for AI product makers: whether publicly available writing can be packaged into paid software that appears to speak in a real person’s voice, or whether that kind of commercial attribution requires a clear opt-in from the humans whose names give the product credibility.
As AI tools move deeper into writing, editing, and knowledge work, the Grammarly case could become an early test of how identity, consent, and commercialization are handled when software companies try to turn recognizable expertise into a product feature.
Join The Discussion