Writing Tool Removes AI Personas After Legal Challenge from Authors

Grammarly has disabled an AI feature that mimicked the writing styles of prominent authors and scientists without their consent, following a significant legal challenge from the writers whose identities were used. The Expert Review function, which offered writing feedback “inspired by” the personas of figures including Stephen King and Carl Sagan, was taken down this week by Superhuman, the tech firm that operates Grammarly. The move came after a multi-million dollar lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York by investigative journalist Julia Angwin and other writers who discovered their names and professional reputations being marketed as commercial AI personas. Superhuman’s chief executive acknowledged the tool had “misrepresented” the voices of experts|expert voices, apologizing for the controversial feature.

The Function That Ignited Public Backlash

The Expert Review function constituted a major departure from Grammarly’s traditional composition help approach. Rather than offering standard feedback, the tool allowed users to get editing suggestions “inspired by” the characteristic approaches of renowned writers and academics. Users could select from personas including acclaimed novelist Stephen King and renowned scientist Carl Sagan, among hundreds of other public figures. The feature offered to deliver tailored writing advice filtered through the lens of these celebrated experts, ostensibly assisting users enhance their work by studying the best in their respective fields.

What Grammarly promoted as an cutting-edge learning platform quickly revealed itself as a troubling appropriation of identity and intellectual property. The company had not sought permission from any of the writers whose personas were being copied and sold. Investigative journalist Julia Angwin, who became the lead plaintiff in the class action suit, expressed shock at discovering her professional reputation being offered as a product feature. She portrayed the circumstances as distinctly separate from traditional deepfakes, noting that editorial skills represents her livelihood and that she had never imagined her professional skills could be taken and repackaged this way.

• AI personas copied hundreds of writers without consent or compensation
• Feature delivered feedback inspired by renowned writers and researchers
• Users could choose different expert personas for revision feedback
• Tool was incorporated into Grammarly’s paid subscription service offerings

Court Action and Market Reaction

The legal action against Superhuman and Grammarly constitutes a pivotal point in the wider conversation over artificial intelligence ethics and intellectual property rights. Led by journalist investigator Julia Angwin, the class-action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York contends that the company illegally appropriated the identities of hundreds of writers to create revenue from its subscription-based service. The filing contends that utilizing identities and professional reputations for business use absent explicit authorization infringes upon existing legal protections protecting individuals from unlawful commercial use of their identity and likeness.

The reaction to the lawsuit has been swift and substantial. Within 24 hours of filing, Angwin’s legal team indicated receiving from over 40 prospective claimants eager to join the action, illustrating broad apprehension among affected writers. The case seeks damages surpassing $5 million, though industry analysts indicate the real amount could be substantially greater once the court calculates compensation derived from the company’s earnings from the disputed feature. Superhuman’s quick move to deactivate the Expert Review function indicates the company recognized the legal and reputational risks posed by continuing the feature.

The Suit Details

The lawsuit specifically contends that Grammarly and Superhuman violated core protections of identity protection by attributing editorial advice to writers who never provided such guidance. The legal filing emphasizes that the organization profited from these personas through its paid subscription model, generating revenue through the unauthorized use of hundreds of individuals’ names and professional reputations. Attorneys argue this amounts to a “brazen violation of the law,” referencing existing legal precedents protecting individuals from unauthorized commercialization of their identity without permission.

Julia Angwin’s personal frustration with the feature went further than the unlawful infringements to the quality of the AI’s output. She labeled the proposed edits attributed to her as a “slopperganger”—a term describing inferior AI-produced material—pointing out that the edits were leaving sentences inferior rather than making them better. This further aspect to the case underscores not only the regulatory violation but also the harm to reputation of seeing one’s name linked to inferior quality output, intensifying the injury of improper use of one’s name.

• Compensation claimed surpass $5 million with final amount determined by company earnings
• More than 40 other claimants contacted law firm in the initial day
• Alleges unlawful commercial use of identities lacking consent or compensation

Reliability Problems and Quality Concerns

Beyond the legal violations, the Expert Review function raised serious questions about the dependability and precision of algorithmically-produced editorial guidance. Users depending on suggestions attributed to recognized authors and scholars had no way of knowing whether they were receiving genuine guidance or computer-generated imitations of professional expertise. This erosion of trust extends beyond individual plaintiffs to the broader writing community, where audiences and learners might have reasonably assumed they were getting guidance from established authorities. The feature’s removal underscores a critical gap between what AI can technically accomplish and what it ought to be allowed to do from an ethical standpoint.

The harm to standing inflicted on impersonated writers turned out to be particularly harmful because it linked their names to inferior quality work. Angwin’s experience demonstrated this challenge—her professional standing was being marketed as a high-quality offering while concurrently offering inferior editorial guidance. This pairing of unauthorized application and low quality created a double injury: lack of control over her name paired with association with mediocre output that went against her professional expectations. For writers whose standing relies on the standard of their work, such misrepresentation represents an existential threat to their reputation and commercial value.

The Challenge with AI Mimicry

The core issue in Grammarly’s strategy lay in seeking to mimic the nuanced judgment and mastery of seasoned professionals through automated systems. Skilled revision necessitates contextual understanding, stylistic awareness, and extensive professional background—elements that cannot be authentically captured by examining text examples and generating responses in a comparable style. Angwin’s point that the automated suggestions made sentences increasingly complicated rather than making them better exposed the fundamental emptiness of the mimicry. The platform could replicate surface-level stylistic markers but lacked the deeper comprehension required for offering authentically helpful direction, ultimately undermining both the credibility of the personas and the utility of the service itself.

Corporate Response and Path Forward

Superhuman’s chief executive Shishir Mehrotra acknowledged the misstep publicly, issuing an apology on LinkedIn in which he admitted that the Expert Review function had “misrepresented” the voices of the impersonated experts. The company’s quick move to turn off the feature this week suggests an effort to reduce further legal and reputational damage. However, the removal came only after the lawsuit was filed and significant public backlash emerged, raising questions about whether the company would have taken action without external pressure. Mehrotra’s statement, while apologetic in tone, did not address the larger issue of how such a feature was approved and deployed in the first place, nor did it outline specific steps to avoid similar incidents in the future.

The road ahead for Grammarly remains uncertain as the litigation proceeds. Beyond the pressing legal issue, the company faces the challenge of rebuilding trust with writers and users alike who may now question the ethical guidelines governing its AI development. The discontinuation of the Expert Review function constitutes a reactive versus proactive stance, indicating the company is addressing legal pressure rather than showing genuine commitment to ethical artificial intelligence. Moving forward, Grammarly will almost certainly need to implement stricter consent protocols and governance structures for any capabilities that employ the use of actual people’s identities. The company’s management of this controversy may establish a precedent for how other AI firms handle the use of public figures in their generation systems.

The rapidity at which Grammarly disabled the feature suggests the company recognized the legal, reputational, and business stakes at play. However, the absence of preventive action before the lawsuit demonstrates that internal review systems overlooked the ethical violations. As the legal proceedings continue, the company could encounter increased oversight concerning how numerous content creators were impacted and whether damages will be provided above what the lawsuit demands. The case is poised to affect how competing AI firms address the use of real identities in their products going forward.