Grammarly’s parent, Superhuman, disabled Expert Review after criticism that it generated writing advice under the names of writers and academics without their consent. Journalist Julia Angwin’s New York federal class action alleges commercial misappropriation of identities and seeks damages exceeding $5 million for the proposed class. Superhuman apologized but says the claims lack merit and it will defend itself.
Sources
Grammarly has disabled a controversial AI feature that imitated the style of prominent writers and academics, and is facing a multimillion dollar lawsuit from those whose identities were used without consent.
Grammarly, the tool meant to assist with spelling, grammar, and in identifying plagiarism, is being sued for a new AI tool called “Expert Review.” The tool offers editing suggestions from established authors and writers—ostensibly not a bad idea—except that none of those people consented to being involved in the first place. The tool offers real-time writing tips from celebrities like Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson, as well as journalists, like The Markup founder Julia Angwin, who filed the class action lawsuit against Grammarly’s parent company Superhuman, after she alleged the tool used her likeness without her permission: “have worked for decades honing my skills as a writer and editor, and I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise,” Angwin said in a statement. From photorealistic deepfakes on Sora to scammers using chatbots to swindle users out of money, AI has already been bending reality and using people’s likenesses at worrying speeds. The Grammarly lawsuit shows how professional writers’ likenesses are also up for grabs—in addition to having that same technology threaten their very careers and livelihoods. This is the latest battle in the war over what legal and ethical boundaries AI should not cross. Sorry, not sorry The federal lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York Wednesday, “challenges Grammarly’s misappropriation of the names and identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors to earn profits for Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman,” per court documents reviewed by Fast Company. Angwin’s lawsuit comes as Superhuman has recently announced plans to phase out Expert Review. Shishir Mehrotra, Superhuman’s CEO, addressed the decision to remove the tool in a post on LinkedIn on Wednesday: “This kind of scrutiny improves our products, and we take it seriously.” He continued: “As context, the agent was designed to help users discover influential perspectives and scholarship relevant to their work, while also providing meaningful ways for experts to build deeper relationships with their fans.” But commenters on the public post, which include a linguistics professor, a New York Times editor, a public library clerk and others in the writing and editing industry, pushed back, arguing the CEO’s words don’t take real accountability or capture the gravity of the situation. In a statement shared with Fast Company, Mehrotra followed up on his apology, but was dismissive of the lawsuit. “We have reviewed the lawsuit, and we believe the legal claims are without merit and will strongly defend against them,” he said in the statement. The new identity wars As AI continues to develop at breakneck pace, many workers—especially ones in fields at high risk for automation, like writing and editing—this Grammarly lawsuit brings fresh fears around how workers can protect not just their work, but their identities. And many professionals are taking action. Actor Matthew McConaughey, for example, filed eight trademark applications earlier this year to protect his likeness and voice as AI deepfakes being scarily realistic and accurate.
The feature, which Grammarly shut down Wednesday, presented editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics—without their consent.
A New York writer and editor is suing Grammarly and its parent company, Superhuman, in a right-of-publicity lawsuit for allegedly offering editing and writing advice under her name, without her authorization.