Lawsuit Challenges Grammarly AI Tool That Mimicked Famous Writers
A new lawsuit is raising questions about how artificial intelligence tools use the identities and writing styles of well-known authors and journalists.
Julia Angwin, an investigative journalist, author, and contributing Opinion editor for The New York Times, has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Superhuman, the parent company of Grammarly. The suit targets an AI feature launched in August that offered editing suggestions modeled after the styles of prominent public figures.
The tool, called “Expert Review,” generated writing feedback inspired by well-known voices such as Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and tech journalist Kara Swisher. According to the complaint, the feature referenced these writers and editors without their knowledge or permission.
Angwin argues that the feature improperly used the names and reputations of real people for a commercial product. The lawsuit claims this practice violates laws protecting individuals from unauthorized use of their identity for profit.
“Contrary to what some tech companies appear to believe,” the complaint states, “it is unlawful to appropriate people’s names and identities for commercial purposes, whether those people are famous or not.”
The controversy quickly gained attention online, with critics questioning whether AI companies should be able to replicate or market tools based on recognizable writing voices. Angwin herself told Wired that she tested the feature and found its editing suggestions unimpressive.
Following the backlash, Grammarly initially allowed journalists to opt out of the program. Shortly afterward, the company removed the feature entirely.
In a statement on LinkedIn, Grammarly CEO Shishir Mehrotra explained that the tool relied on publicly available information processed through third-party large language models. The goal, he said, was to help users engage with influential perspectives and connect more deeply with experts whose work inspired them.
Mehrotra also issued an apology, acknowledging the concerns raised by writers and journalists. He said Grammarly plans to rethink the concept and develop future features that allow individuals to control how, or whether, their names and work are represented.
The lawsuit does not list a specific damage request but notes that the financial stakes of the case exceed $5 million.
As generative AI tools become increasingly common in writing and publishing, the outcome of this case could influence how companies design AI features that reference or emulate real-world creators.