Editorial illustration for Grammarly faces class-action suit over AI ‘Expert Review’ feature
Grammarly Sued Over Misleading AI 'Expert Review' Claims
Grammarly faces class-action suit over AI ‘Expert Review’ feature
Grammarly is under fire. A class‑action lawsuit alleges that its AI‑driven “Expert Review” feature misleads users about the provenance of the feedback it provides. While the complaint focuses on the claim that a “veteran writer”—real or imagined—evaluates a subscriber’s prose, the broader issue is how the company markets the service.
Why does this matter? Because the same playbook appeared at Superhuman last year, when the email client rolled out a set of AI widgets that promised critiques from historic literary figures. As WIRED reported earlier this month, the Superhuman rollout sparked debate over transparency and consumer expectations.
But here the stakes are higher. Grammarly’s user base runs into the millions, and the alleged misrepresentation touches on both advertising law and the ethical use of generative AI. The company’s response, which acknowledges the grievance, is set to follow.
“We are sorry and will do things differently going forward.”
We are sorry and will do things differently going forward." As WIRED reported earlier this month, Superhuman last year added a suite of AI-powered widgets to the platform, including one that purported to have a veteran writer (living or dead) weigh in with a critique of the user's text. While a disclaimer clarified that none of the people cited had endorsed or directly participated in the development of this tool, which leveraged an underlying large language model, various writers, including WIRED journalists, expressed frustration over Grammarly invoking their likenesses and apparently regurgitating their life's work with these AI agents.
The lawsuit underscores a tension that has emerged around AI‑driven writing tools. Grammarly’s parent, Superhuman, added an “Expert Review” widget last year that frames suggestions as coming from well‑known writers and scholars—people who never agreed to be quoted. Julia Angwin, the only named plaintiff, argues that the practice misleads users and exploits reputations without permission.
The complaint does not request specific damages, leaving the legal remedy unclear. Superhuman’s brief response—“We are sorry and will do things differently going forward”—acknowledges the misstep but offers no detail on how the feature will change. Was the intent to enhance credibility, or simply to market a more compelling AI experience?
The answer remains uncertain. While the AI widgets broaden Grammarly’s capabilities, the case raises questions about transparency and consent that have yet to be resolved in court. Until a ruling clarifies the boundaries of permissible AI attribution, users and creators alike may need to watch how such features are presented.
Further Reading
- Grammarly's 'expert review' is just missing the actual experts - TechCrunch
- Grammarly Offering Manuscript Reviews by AI Versions of Recently Deceased Professors - Futurism
- Grammarly turned me into an AI editor against my will and I hate it - Platformer
- Grammarly's AI Expert Review Sparks Backlash Over Consent - eWeek
Related Reading
Policy & Regulation Tree search framework achieves 98.7% success on docs where vector search fails
Policy & Regulation Court rules AI model contains no copies, limits Getty watermark claim
Policy & Regulation California enacts first U.S. regulations for AI companion chatbots
From Archives Anthropic files lawsuit against U.S. government in federal court
From Archives OpenAI, Google staff file amicus brief for Anthropic vs Pentagon blacklist
Common Questions Answered
What specific claims does the class-action lawsuit against Grammarly make about its 'Expert Review' feature?
The lawsuit alleges that Grammarly misleads users by presenting AI-generated feedback as if it comes from a 'veteran writer' who does not actually exist or review the text. The complaint suggests that this marketing approach exploits the reputations of writers and scholars without their permission or consent.
Who is the named plaintiff in the lawsuit against Grammarly, and what is her primary argument?
Julia Angwin is the named plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit against Grammarly. She argues that the company's practice of framing AI suggestions as coming from well-known writers and scholars is deceptive and inappropriately uses these individuals' reputations without their agreement.
How does the Grammarly lawsuit relate to a similar incident involving Superhuman's AI writing tools?
The Grammarly lawsuit follows a similar pattern to Superhuman's AI writing tool controversy from the previous year, where the email client added AI widgets that claimed to provide critiques from veteran writers. Both cases involve AI-generated feedback being marketed as coming from specific, recognizable writers who never actually endorsed or participated in the tool's development.