Writer files lawsuit against Grammarly over AI feature using experts’ identities

A journalist has filed a class action lawsuit against Grammarly after the company introduced an AI feature that generated editorial feedback by imitating well-known writers and public figures without their permission.

The legal complaint was submitted by investigative journalist Julia Angwin, who argued that the tool unlawfully used the identities and reputations of authors and commentators.

The feature, known as ‘Expert Review’, produced automated critiques presented as if they came from figures such as Stephen King, Carl Sagan and technology journalist Kara Swisher.

Such a feature was available to subscribers paying an annual fee and was designed to simulate professional editorial guidance.

Critics quickly questioned both the quality of the generated feedback and the decision to associate the tool with real individuals who had not authorised the use of their names or expertise.

Technology writer Casey Newton tested the system by submitting one of his own articles and receiving automated feedback attributed to an AI version of Swisher. The response appeared generic, casting doubt on the value of linking such commentary to prominent personalities.

Following criticism from writers and researchers, the feature was disabled. Shishir Mehrotra, chief executive of Grammarly’s parent company Superhuman, issued a public apology while defending the broader concept behind the tool.

The lawsuit reflects growing tensions around AI systems that replicate creative styles or professional expertise.

As generative AI technologies expand across writing and publishing industries, questions surrounding consent, intellectual labour and identity rights are becoming increasingly prominent.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!