Grammarly Sued Over AI Feature That Used Writers' Identities Without Consent

Grammarly is facing a class-action lawsuit over its decision to use the identities of real journalists for an AI feature without their consent. The suit, filed by journalist Julia Angwin, formalizes months of criticism against the company for a feature that many saw as a fundamental violation of personal and professional identity. It’s a textbook case of a technology company shipping a feature without considering the human cost.

The controversy centers on an AI tool that The Verge reports was called "Expert Review." This feature would offer users AI-generated writing suggestions framed as coming from a specific, recognizable expert. For months, Grammarly used the names of real people, including Angwin, effectively turning their public personas into a product feature to lend credibility to its AI output. Angwin’s class-action complaint, filed Wednesday, alleges this practice violates her identity rights.

A Self-Inflicted Wound

Before the lawsuit, the damage was already done to Grammarly's reputation. As Inc Magazine characterized it, the company managed to burn its own brand with "1 AI Feature No One Asked For." The consensus across reports is that borrowing the names of respected professionals without permission was a severe miscalculation. The tool wasn't a bug; it was a deliberate product choice that treated personal identity as a commodity.

This is not a simple case of data scraping for model training. Grammarly went a step further, directly associating its AI's output with the names and reputations of living individuals. The company essentially tried to borrow the authority of writers like Angwin to bolster its own product, bypassing the simple step of asking for permission. This decision reveals a startling lack of foresight for a company whose entire brand is built on trust and credibility.

From Bad Press to Legal Battle

The lawsuit elevates the issue from a public relations crisis to a significant legal threat. The Verge notes that Angwin’s complaint crystallizes the core grievance: that Grammarly’s AI feature was "identity-stealing." While both sources agree on the facts, The Verge's reporting on the lawsuit provides the tangible consequence of the brand damage Inc Magazine described.

Together, these reports point to a clear pattern. A technology company, eager to demonstrate its AI prowess, overstepped clear ethical and now, allegedly, legal boundaries. The belief that a person's public-facing identity is raw material for a commercial product is being tested in court. Grammarly's attempt to create a clever AI feature has instead created a legal battleground over the rights to one's own name and reputation in the age of artificial intelligence.