Grammarly Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over AI ‘Expert Review’ Feature
Grammarly, the popular AI-powered writing assistant, is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging the misappropriation of the names and identities of numerous writers and journalists. The suit stems from the company’s recently launched “Expert Review” feature, which offered writing feedback “inspired by” well-known authors and experts – often without their consent.
The Controversy Surrounding ‘Expert Review’
The “Expert Review” feature, part of Grammarly’s rebranding as Superhuman, allowed users to receive writing advice seemingly from virtual versions of both living and deceased writers, including Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, William Zinsser, and Carl Sagan [Wired]. The feature was intended to provide users with insights based on the styles and expertise of these figures. Though, it quickly drew criticism for using these individuals’ names without permission.
Lawsuit Alleges Misappropriation of Identity
On Wednesday, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Grammarly, alleging that the feature “misappropriated” the identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors to generate profit [Gizmodo]. The lawsuit is currently led by investigative journalist Julia Angwin, with Stephen King also named in the filing. The suit cites California Civil Code § 3344(a)(1), which prohibits the unauthorized use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes [Gizmodo].
Feature Pulled, Apology Issued
Following the backlash, Grammarly temporarily disabled the “Expert Review” feature. CEO Shishir Mehrotra issued an apology on LinkedIn, stating that the feature was designed to facilitate users discover influential perspectives and build relationships with experts, but acknowledged that the company “fell short” in its execution [Gizmodo].
Concerns Over Accuracy and Functionality
Beyond the ethical concerns of unauthorized use of names, reports also surfaced regarding the accuracy and functionality of the “Expert Review” feature. Wired reported that the feature frequently crashed and provided citations that linked to spammy or unrelated websites [Wired]. Angwin herself told Wired that the advice provided was “actively making it worse” [Gizmodo].
Financial Implications
While the lawsuit does not currently demand a specific monetary amount, it states that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million [Gizmodo]. Gizmodo has reached out to Grammarly for comment on the suit but has not yet received a response.