Imagine opening an app and finding out it’s been selling writing advice under your name. Without asking. Without paying you. And the advice isn’t even good.
That’s what happened to investigative journalist Julia Angwin, tech journalist Kara Swisher, Stephen King, and hundreds of other writers, thanks to Grammarly’s now-dead “Expert Review” feature.
Angwin filed a class action lawsuit on March 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, targeting Superhuman Platform, Inc. (Grammarly’s parent company) and seeking at least $5 million in damages.
What “Expert Review” Actually Did
Grammarly launched Expert Review in August 2025 as a premium feature for paid subscribers. The pitch was simple. Pick a famous writer from a roster, get AI-generated feedback styled after them, feel like you’ve got a literary legend in your corner.
Except none of those literary legends signed up for the gig.
According to the lawsuit, Grammarly never got consent from the writers it featured, never compensated them, never offered an opt-out. The company just slapped their names on AI-generated suggestions and charged subscribers for the experience.
And here’s the kicker. Angwin described the feature’s output in the complaint as “kind of actively making it worse.” So these writers didn’t just have their names borrowed without permission. Their names were attached to bad advice they never wrote. That’s… really something.
The Legal Argument
The suit invokes California Civil Code § 3344, which prohibits using someone’s name or likeness for commercial purposes without consent. It alleges violations of both privacy and publicity rights. The complaint references “hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors” whose identities were used, though Angwin is currently the sole named plaintiff.
Grammarly’s Response
Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra acknowledged the feature “missed the mark” and pulled it on March 12, the same day the lawsuit was filed. He said the company “fell short” but also stated that Grammarly believes “the legal claims are without merit.”
He also said the company still sees a future for “AI systems that simulate expert-style feedback to help users improve writing,” just not this particular version. So the idea isn’t dead, only this implementation of it. That tells you a lot about where Grammarly’s head is at.
What This Means for Authors
If you use Grammarly (and a lot of authors do), don’t panic. The grammar checking and style suggestions work the same as they did last week. Expert Review was a separate premium feature, and it’s gone now.
But the bigger story here is about how AI companies treat creative professionals’ identities. This wasn’t a case of training on someone’s writing (that’s a different legal fight entirely). Grammarly took real people’s names, attached them to AI output, and sold the combination as a product. That’s way closer to unauthorized endorsement than it is to fair use.
Your name is an asset. Your reputation is an asset. If you’re building an author brand (and you should be), what happens in this case matters to you. The legal precedent could shape how AI companies handle attribution, persona simulation, even where the line sits between “inspired by” and “impersonating.”
This one’s worth watching ;)
Sources
- A writer is suing Grammarly for turning her and other authors into ‘AI editors’ without consent — TechCrunch’s coverage of the lawsuit filing
- Grammarly Allegedly ‘Misappropriated’ Names of Journalists, Says Class Action Suit — Gizmodo’s report on the legal claims and CEO response
- Grammarly Disables AI ‘Expert Review’ Feature After Lawsuit Over Simulated Editorial Personas — The AI Insider on the feature’s removal and implications
- Grammarly Hit With Class-Action Suit Over AI Identity Theft — TechBuzz coverage with details on California publicity rights law