Grammarly removes AI feature that used original authors’ credentials, faces class action lawsuit

Grammarly has pulled its AI-powered Expert Review feature after it was called out for using the identities of journalists and writers without permission. The writing assistant software is now facing a class action lawsuit accusing it of exploiting writers’ names for its own profit.

Launched along with seven other AI agents last August, Expert Review was available in Grammarly’s Free and $12 Pro plans at launch, and was developed to provide users with feedback on the content they wrote. A page on Grammarly’s now-defunct website said Expert Review “[drew] with insights from subject matter experts and trusted publications,” and provided AI-generated feedback “based on publicly available expert content” (via the Wayback Machine). Users can also personalize which “expert” sources Grammarly drew from by selecting specific author names.

“An expert review agent provides subject knowledge and personalized, subject-specific feedback to recommend writing that meets rigorous academic or professional standards designed for the user’s field,” Grammarly wrote in its blog post announcing the feature.

Grammarly’s Expert Review was noticed last week after Wired reported that the feature was providing AI-generated editing on behalf of real writers and scholars, living and dead. The tool’s user guide does not provide a disclaimer that its references to experts are “for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities.” However, the same page also says that Expert Reviews provides “insights from leading experts, authors, and subject matter experts.”

Many said that the subject experts did not take Grammarly seriously by using their identities without their knowledge or consent.

“[Grammarly] it selected a list of real people, gave its models the power to compose sound advice on their behalf, and put it behind the subscription,” wrote Platformer founder Casey Newton, who was among those asked by Grammarly. That’s a deliberate choice to monetize the identities of real people without involving them, and it’s sad.

“This must be some kind of insult or something,” historian Mar Hicks posted on Bluesky, after sharing a screenshot of their identity posted to Expert Review. “You can’t just steal people’s IP and pretend they’re saying something they never said.”

Grammarly responds to expert review backlash

In response to the backlash, Grammarly told Platformer on Monday that it will allow writers to email them to opt out of inclusion in its Expert Review feature. This led to further criticism, as experts were not told that Grammarly was using our identities, and they did not give it permission in the first place. Affected writers won’t know they need to opt out unless a Grammarly user sees their name while using Expert Review and notifies them.

Furthermore, providing an opt-out option did not address Grammarly’s use of deceased authors’ identities. Reportedly deceased authors used by Expert Review include astrophysicist Carl Sagan and intersectional academic iron hooks.

“So Grammerly [sic] breaking the memory of metal instruments AND making AI versions of us all before we die,” wrote researcher Sarah J. Jackson. “Someone tell me who to blame, not even joking.”

Shishir Mehrotra, CEO of developer Superhuman’s Grammarly, subsequently announced on Wednesday that it would be taking Expert Review offline. However, he also pointed out that the company is determined to return it in another way.

“Over the past week, we’ve received critical feedback from professionals who are concerned that the agent is misrepresenting their voices,” Mehrotra said on LinkedIn. “As a core, the agent was designed to help users find influential ideas and lessons relevant to their work, while also providing meaningful ways for professionals to build deeper relationships with their fans. We hear the feedback and realize that we made a mistake this time. I want to apologize and admit that we will reconsider our way forward.

“After much thought, we’ve decided to disable Expert Review while we reimagine the feature to make it more user-friendly, while giving experts real control over how they want to be represented — or not represented at all.”

“That this existed in the first place suggests a complete disconnection from mainstream human society,” climate writer Ketan Joshi responded to Mehrotra’s post. “It should have been obvious immediately that this was exploitative and scary and cruel.”

“With all the talk about how AI ‘builds from’ (read: ‘steals’) existing content, creating a tool that actually takes ‘advice’ from real people who spend their lives caring about writing and technology … is hard to fathom,” wrote Dan Saltzstein of the New York Times. A promise that you won’t do anything like this again, at least.”

The class action lawsuit accuses Grammarly of using the authors’ copyrights without permission

Although Grammarly has not made such a pledge yet, it is already facing consequences for its actions that go beyond reputational damage. New York Times writer Julia Angwin filed a class-action lawsuit against Superhuman on Wednesday, alleging that Grammarly Expert Review used her identity without her permission. The law firm representing him, Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC, has urged any affected authors to join the class action.

While it’s unclear exactly how many author identities Grammarly has allegedly misused, it could be a large collection. Looking at tech journalists alone, The Verge reports that Expert Review has named several members of its editorial staff, along with writers from Wired, Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Atlantic, PC Gamer, Gizmodo, Digital Foundry, Tom’s Guide, and Mashable’s sister sites IGN and Rock Paper Shotgun. Angwin said “a lot of people” have already made inquiries about joining the lawsuit.

“This is not just for me, but for everyone who has spent years and decades honing their skills as a writer and editor, only to discover AI on their own,” Angwin wrote in a LinkedIn post.

“For more than 100 years, New York law has prevented companies from using a person’s name for commercial purposes without their consent,” said Peter Romer-Friedman of Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC. “The law does not provide an exception for technology or AI companies.”

Filed in New York District Court, the class action seeks damages and an injunction to prevent Grammarly from using the authors’ copyrights without their permission.

Mashable has contacted Superhuman for comment.