Grammarly Lawsuit Alleges Software Uses Names of Journalists, Authors for ‘Expert Review’ AI Tool Without Consent

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges the parent company of Grammarly illegally failed to secure authorization from journalists, authors, writers, lawyers and editors before using their names in conjunction with the editing platform’s AI-powered Expert Review tool.

Want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuits that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 18-page lawsuit against defendant Superhuman Platform Inc. contends that Grammarly has not only used hundreds of real experts’ names without consent for the AI Expert Review tool, which is touted as a feature to provide writers with real-time feedback from well-known writing professionals, but also their publicly available work to “craft writing advice that these experts did not give.”

The Grammarly class action lawsuit was filed by Julia Angwin, an award-winning investigative journalist with 25 years of experience working for the New York Times, ProPublica and the Wall Street Journal. Angwin claims that she is one of the “experts” who Grammarly says provides suggested comments and feedback to customers, who pay $12 per month to access Grammarly’s premium “expert review” services.

“But Grammarly failed to obtain the consent of Ms. Angwin and hundreds of other ‘experts’ before Grammarly launched the product nationwide, sold subscriptions that included Expert Review using those experts’ names, and began earning revenue and profits from appropriating the names and identities of Ms. Angwin and others,” the filing charges.

According to the complaint, other writing professionals whose names have been exploited by Grammarly without consent include astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, author Stephen King, New York Times reporter Kashmir Hill and former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission Julie Brill.

According to the complaint, the Expert Review tool, launched in August 2025, relies heavily on AI technology that digests the publicly available work of these expert figures and then crafts recommendations to uploaded user work based on what improvements or alterations these figures might suggest. The “expert” supposedly issuing recommendations is selected by Grammarly based on the topic of the piece, with the tool seemingly making assignments based on its knowledge of the person’s work, the suit explains.

Importantly, the case reiterates that as the tool processes work, it uses evasive affirmations, such as “applying ideas from” or “inspired” by a particular figure, possibly in an effort to skirt liability surrounding falsified, illegitimate claims.

However, the case affirms that using the name, identity or likeness of any individual, regardless of fame or status, for commercial purposes without their consent is unlawful under the California Civil Code and the New York Civil Rights Law.

The lawsuit takes issue not only with the lack of economic reimbursement offered by Grammarly to authors whose work is the backbone of the AI tool, but also with the potential for injury to name and reputation. The real-life experts have zero say in the advice suggested to subscribers, the case maintains, and Grammarly’s actions effectively limit the control that they have over what is associated with their name and likeness.

“[A] Grammarly user could become displeased with Ms. Angwin if they did not agree with her writing advice or received a negative result after taking that advice (such as a bad grade in school or a negative performance evaluation at work), even though Ms. Angwin had absolutely nothing to do with the advice that she purportedly gave,” the suit relays.

On March 11, 2026, Superhuman Platform CEO Shishir Mehrotra took to LinkedIn to post that Grammarly would be disabling its Expert Review service in light of recent feedback and scrutiny from the promoted experts. It is currently unclear when the service will be relaunched and with what changes.

The Grammarly Expert Review class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who had their names used for Expert Review without giving their consent on any platform owned or operated by Superhuman Platform, including Grammarly Enterprise, Grammarly Business, Grammarly for Education, Superhuman Go, Grammarly’s AI writing surface, through the date of judgment in this action.

Learn all about the legal process: What is a class action lawsuit?