Grammarly Expert Review Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Unauthorized AI Feature

Investigative journalist Julia Angwin serves as the lead plaintiff in the suit, which argues that Superhuman misappropriated names and identities of hundreds of writers to generate profits. The complaint seeks damages exceeding $5 million for the affected class of journalists, authors, and editors whose names appeared in the system alongside figures like Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Legal Framework Around AI Identity Usage

The lawsuit relies on established privacy laws in New York and California that prohibit commercial use of a person's name and likeness without permission. Attorney Peter Romer-Friedman characterizes the case as legally straightforward, telling Wired that professionals who spend decades developing expertise should not see their names appropriated without consent.

For European AI companies and enterprise buyers, this case highlights similar concerns around GDPR compliance and personality rights that vary across EU member states. The precedent could influence how AI companies approach training data and attribution when building writing assistance tools for multilingual markets.

Technical Implementation and Quality Issues

Beyond legal concerns, the Expert Review feature demonstrated significant quality problems. Angwin reported that her AI persona provided advice that actively worsened writing, suggesting unnecessary complexity and irrelevant expansions. The underlying large language model appeared to generate generic suggestions rather than insights reflecting individual writing expertise.

This quality gap exposes a broader challenge for AI companies attempting to personalize writing assistance. Enterprise teams evaluating similar tools should assess whether purported expert guidance represents genuine stylistic analysis or marketing-driven feature positioning.

Enterprise Risk Management Implications

Superhuman's decision to discontinue the feature reflects mounting pressure from affected professionals and potential regulatory exposure. Ailian Gan, Superhuman's director for product management, acknowledged missing the mark and promised different approaches going forward.

For procurement teams and legal departments, the Grammarly Expert Review lawsuit demonstrates the importance of auditing AI vendor practices around training data sources and attribution claims. Companies deploying writing assistance tools should verify that vendors obtain proper permissions for any named expertise or personality simulation features.

Market Response and Future Development

The case arrives as writing assistance platforms compete on differentiation beyond basic grammar correction. However, the backlash against Expert Review suggests that simulating specific individuals without consent crosses professional and legal boundaries that technical capabilities alone cannot address.

Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra acknowledged on LinkedIn that expert feedback would improve product development. The company now faces the challenge of rebuilding trust while developing alternative approaches that provide genuine value without appropriating professional identities. This case underscores how the Grammarly Expert Review controversy reflects broader tensions around AI companies leveraging human expertise without compensation or approval.