Grammarly Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Using Writers' Names in Paid AI Feature
Writers are pushing back. A new class action accuses Grammarly of using real writers' names to sell an AI add-on that generated "expert" feedback as if it came from those people.
Investigative journalist Julia Angwin filed the case on March 11 in the Southern District of New York against Superhuman Platform, Inc., which operates Grammarly. The complaint centers on "Expert Review," a feature launched in 2025 that, according to court filings, referenced Angwin and author Stephen King-without their involvement-while charging users about $12 per month.
What's at stake for your byline
The lawsuit claims Grammarly marketed feedback in the style or editorial perspective of known writers and editors, implying participation or approval that never happened. Angwin argues this crossed legal lines by using names to boost subscriptions and revenue, attributing editorial judgments to people who didn't write or review the content.
Core claims include misappropriation of name and likeness, violations of the right of publicity, false endorsement, and unjust enrichment. The proposed class covers journalists, authors, editors, and other professionals-allegedly "hundreds" of individuals whose identities appeared in the feature's marketing or output.
The legal theories in plain English
- Right of publicity: Your name, image, and identity can't be used commercially without permission. See an overview of this doctrine via Cornell Law's explanation of publicity rights here.
- False endorsement: It's unlawful to suggest someone endorses or is affiliated with a product when they're not. The FTC's Endorsement Guides outline how endorsements must avoid misleading consumers; details here.
- Unjust enrichment: If a company profits from using your identity without consent, the suit seeks to recover those gains.
What the lawsuit asks the court to do
The filing seeks an order stopping Grammarly from using writers' names without permission. It also requests damages and other financial relief for those whose identities were allegedly used to drive subscriptions.
Because it's a class action, one person can sue on behalf of a larger group that suffered the same alleged harm. If the class is certified, writers included in the class could be eligible for relief without filing individual cases.
Why this matters beyond one feature
As AI tools simulate tone and editorial style, the line between inspiration and impersonation gets tight. Using a living person's name to lend credibility, create an "expert" veneer, or imply review isn't the same as training on text or mimicking a vibe-especially when money changes hands.
For working writers, your name is your business. If software trades on it, that touches both reputation and income.
Practical next steps for writers
- Search for your name plus "AI," "expert review," "style," and "endorsed by" on major platforms and in marketing copy. Screenshot everything.
- Audit your contracts and bios. Add clear "no endorsement without written consent" language and require pre-approval for any use of your name in ads or UI.
- Set up alerts for your name and common misspellings. Track whether tools or plugins present your identity inside product interfaces.
- If you find misuse, document it with timestamps, URLs, and copies of paywalls or pricing pages. Consider sending a formal demand and speaking with counsel.
- For publishers and editors: update contributor agreements to spell out how AI tools can reference staff or freelancers by name.
The bigger signal
AI products that borrow style are one thing; paid features that imply your involvement are another. Expect more scrutiny, stricter product guidelines, and sharper contract terms across the writing ecosystem.
If you want a structured way to stay current on AI features that affect your byline and workflow, explore AI for Writers.
Your membership also unlocks:
