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 Feature That Ignited Outrage

The Expert Review capability was a major change from Grammarly’s conventional editing support approach. Rather than delivering one-size-fits-all feedback, the tool enabled users to get editing suggestions “inspired by” the characteristic styles of renowned writers and academics. Users could pick from personas including acclaimed novelist Stephen King and distinguished scientist Carl Sagan, among hundreds of other public figures. The feature offered to deliver personalized writing advice examined through the lens of these esteemed experts, ostensibly helping users refine their work by studying the best in their respective fields.

What Grammarly presented as an innovative learning platform ultimately proved as a troubling unauthorized use of identity and intellectual property. The company had not sought permission from any of the writers whose personas were being reproduced for profit. Investigative journalist Julia Angwin, who served as the primary plaintiff in the class action suit, voiced concern at discovering her professional reputation being marketed as a product feature. She characterized the matter as fundamentally different from traditional deepfakes, stressing that editorial skills is her means of earning and that she had never imagined her professional skills could be taken and repackaged this way.

• AI personas replicated hundreds of author voices without consent or compensation
• Feature promised feedback inspired by famous authors and scientists
• Users could pick distinct professional personas for writing recommendations
• Tool was incorporated into Grammarly’s premium subscription services

Court Action and Market Reaction

The legal dispute against Superhuman and Grammarly marks a significant moment in the wider conversation over artificial intelligence ethics and intellectual property rights. Led by investigative journalist Julia Angwin, the class action suit brought before the Southern District of New York claims that the company wrongfully used the identities of numerous writers to create revenue from its subscription-based service. The filing contends that using names and professional reputations for commercial purposes absent explicit authorization breaches existing legal protections protecting individuals from unlawful commercial use of their name and likeness.

The response to the lawsuit has been swift and substantial. Within 24 hours of submission, Angwin’s legal team reported hearing from over 40 prospective claimants keen to participate in the action, illustrating widespread concern among affected writers. The case seeks damages surpassing $5 million, though legal experts indicate the actual figure could be substantially greater once the court determines compensation derived from the company’s earnings from the disputed feature. Superhuman’s quick move to deactivate the Expert Review function indicates the company understood the reputational and legal risks created by continuing the feature.

The Court Case Details

The lawsuit specifically contends that Grammarly and Superhuman breached essential safeguards of identity privacy by attributing editorial advice to individuals who did not furnish such direction. The lawsuit filing highlights that the organization profited from these personas through its subscription-based revenue system, generating revenue directly from the unlicensed use of hundreds of individuals’ names and professional reputations. Attorneys argue this constitutes a “brazen violation of the law,” citing prior legal standards protecting individuals from commercial misappropriation of their identity without approval.

Julia Angwin’s individual dissatisfaction with the feature extended beyond the regulatory breaches to the quality of the AI’s output. She characterized the proposed edits credited to her as a “slopperganger”—a term denoting low-quality AI-generated content—pointing out that the edits were rendering sentences worse rather than improving them. This additional layer to the case highlights not only the unlawful conduct but also the harm to reputation of having one’s name associated with substandard professional work, 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 additional plaintiffs contacted law firm within the initial day
• Claims unauthorized commercial exploitation of identities without consent or compensation

Trust Deficiencies and Credibility Issues

Beyond the legal violations, the Expert Review function prompted significant concerns about the dependability and precision of algorithmically-produced editorial guidance. Users relying 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 goes further than single users to the wider writing sector, where audiences and learners might have legitimately believed they were receiving instruction from established authorities. The feature’s removal highlights a critical gap between what AI can technically accomplish and what it ought to be allowed to do from an ethical standpoint.

The reputational harm inflicted on writers being impersonated was especially insidious because it tied their names directly to low-quality output. Angwin’s experience illustrated the issue—her professional identity was being marketed as a high-quality offering while at the same time providing substandard editorial support. This combination of unauthorized application and poor quality resulted in twofold damage: lack of control over her name coupled with linking to inferior work that conflicted with her professional standards. For writers whose reputation depends on the quality of their work, such unauthorized use represents an existential threat to their professional standing and market position.

The Challenge with AI Imitation

The fundamental problem in Grammarly’s strategy lay in trying to reproduce the subtle discernment and mastery of experienced authors through algorithmic processes. Expert editorial work demands context-specific knowledge, attention to style, and extensive professional background—elements that cannot genuinely be replicated by examining text examples and generating responses in a similar voice. Angwin’s criticism that the AI-generated edits made sentences more complex rather than enhancing quality revealed the hollow nature of the imitation. The system could reproduce obvious stylistic features but was missing the profound understanding necessary to provide truly useful editing advice, ultimately compromising both the authenticity of the personas and the usefulness of the platform itself.

Organizational Response and Way Ahead

Superhuman’s CEO 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 swift decision to disable the feature this week suggests an attempt to reduce further legal and reputational damage. However, the removal came only after the lawsuit was filed and substantial public criticism emerged, prompting concerns about whether the company would have taken action without external pressure. Mehrotra’s statement, while apologetic in tone, did not address the broader question of how such a feature was greenlit and launched in the first place, nor did it outline specific steps to prevent similar incidents in the future.

The way ahead for Grammarly stays uncertain as the legal case continues. Beyond the urgent legal dispute, the company confronts the challenge of rebuilding trust with writers and users alike who may now question the moral principles shaping its AI advancement. The removal of the Expert Review function represents a reactive rather than proactive stance, implying the company is addressing legal pressure rather than showing genuine commitment to ethical artificial intelligence. Moving forward, Grammarly will almost certainly need to introduce stricter consent protocols and governance structures for any capabilities that employ the use of actual people’s identities. The company’s handling of this crisis may establish a precedent for how rival artificial intelligence companies address the use of public figures in their generative tools.

The rapidity at which Grammarly shut down the feature indicates the company recognized the legal and reputational stakes involved. However, the failure to take preventive steps before the lawsuit indicates that internal review systems overlooked the ethical violations. As the case moves forward, the company could encounter increased oversight concerning how numerous content creators were impacted and whether damages will be provided more than what the lawsuit requires. The case is poised to affect how rival AI organizations handle the incorporation of real identities in their products moving ahead.