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 Function That Triggered Public Backlash

The Expert Review feature was a major departure from Grammarly’s traditional composition help system. Rather than delivering generic feedback, the tool permitted users to receive editing suggestions “inspired by” the unique voices of celebrated writers and academics. Users could choose from personas including highly-regarded novelist Stephen King and renowned scientist Carl Sagan, among many other public figures. The feature offered to deliver tailored writing advice filtered through the lens of these esteemed experts, ostensibly assisting users refine their work by studying the best in their respective fields.

What Grammarly marketed as an cutting-edge educational tool ultimately proved as a troubling unauthorized use of identity and intellectual property. The company had failed to obtain permission from any of the writers whose personas were being reproduced for profit. Reporter Julia Angwin, who served as the primary plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, expressed shock at discovering her professional identity being sold as a product feature. She characterized the matter as substantially distinct from traditional deepfakes, stressing that editorial skills constitutes her income and that she had never imagined her professional skills could be appropriated and sold this way.

• AI personas emulated hundreds of author voices without permission or payment
• Feature promised suggestions based on famous authors and scientists
• Users could select various specialist personas for writing recommendations
• Tool was incorporated into Grammarly’s premium subscription services

Legal Action and Industry Response

The legal dispute against Superhuman and Grammarly represents a significant moment in the larger discussion over artificial intelligence ethics and intellectual property rights. Led by journalist investigator Julia Angwin, the class action suit submitted to the Southern District of New York contends that the company illegally appropriated the names of hundreds of writers to produce earnings from its paid service. The filing contends that utilizing identities and professional reputations for profit-making activities without clear permission violates existing legal protections protecting individuals from unauthorized exploitation of their identity and likeness.

The response to the lawsuit has been rapid and significant. Within 24 hours of filing, Angwin’s legal team reported hearing from over 40 potential plaintiffs eager to join the action, demonstrating broad apprehension among affected writers. The case pursues damages exceeding $5 million, though industry analysts suggest the real amount could be considerably higher once the court calculates compensation based on the company’s revenue generated by the disputed feature. Superhuman’s rapid decision to deactivate the Expert Review function indicates the company understood the legal and reputational risks created by maintaining the feature.

The Legal Case Details

The lawsuit argues in detail that Grammarly and Superhuman violated core protections of personal identity safeguards by attributing editorial advice to writers who failed to give such direction. The lawsuit filing highlights that the firm commercialized these personas through its paid subscription model, creating profits via the unlicensed use of hundreds of individuals’ names and professional reputations. Attorneys maintain this amounts to a “blatant violation of the law,” pointing to existing legal precedents protecting individuals from commercial misappropriation of their identities without approval.

Julia Angwin’s individual dissatisfaction with the feature surpassed the legal violations to the quality of the AI’s output. She described the revision recommendations attributed to her as a “slopperganger”—a term referring to substandard machine-created text—noting that the edits were making sentences inferior rather than improving them. This additional layer to the case emphasizes not only the legal impropriety but also the reputational damage of seeing one’s name associated with below-standard professional content, magnifying the injury of improper use of one’s name.

• Damages sought exceed $5 million with actual figure based on company earnings
• Over 40 additional plaintiffs contacted law firm within the initial day
• Claims unauthorized commercial exploitation of identities lacking consent or compensation

Quality Concerns and Credibility Issues

Beyond the regulatory breaches, the Expert Review function raised serious questions about the dependability and precision of AI-generated editorial advice. Users depending on suggestions attributed to recognized authors and scholars had no means to determine whether they were getting authentic instruction or computer-generated imitations of professional expertise. This erosion of trust goes further than individual plaintiffs to the broader writing community, where readers and students might have legitimately believed they were getting guidance from established authorities. The removal of the feature underscores a critical gap between what AI can technically accomplish and what it should ethically be permitted to do.

The reputational harm suffered by writers whose identities were used was especially problematic because it tied their names directly to inferior quality work. Angwin’s case illustrated the issue—her name and reputation was being marketed as a top-tier service while simultaneously delivering substandard editorial support. This combination of misuse of identity and low quality caused dual harm: loss of control over her name combined with association with substandard results that went against her professional benchmarks. For writers whose standing relies on the standard of their work, such misrepresentation represents an existential threat to their professional standing and market position.

The Problem with AI Mimicry

The fundamental problem in Grammarly’s methodology lay in seeking to mimic the nuanced judgment and expertise of experienced authors through computational methods. Skilled revision necessitates situational awareness, stylistic awareness, and decades of refined practice—elements that cannot genuinely be replicated by studying written work and generating responses in a comparable style. Angwin’s point that the AI-generated edits made sentences unnecessarily intricate rather than enhancing quality revealed the hollow nature of the mimicry. The platform could replicate obvious stylistic features but lacked the profound understanding required for offering truly useful editing advice, ultimately undermining both the credibility of the personas and the usefulness of the platform itself.

Company Response and Way Ahead

Superhuman’s CEO Shishir Mehrotra acknowledged the misstep publicly, releasing 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 turn off the feature this week suggests an effort to reduce additional legal and reputational damage. However, the removal came only following the lawsuit was filed and significant public backlash surfaced, raising questions about whether the company would have acted without outside pressure. Mehrotra’s statement, while apologetic in tone, did not tackle the larger issue of how such a feature was greenlit and launched in the first place, nor did it detail concrete measures to avoid comparable situations in the future.

The road ahead for Grammarly stays uncertain as the litigation proceeds. Beyond the urgent legal dispute, the company confronts the difficulty of regaining trust with content creators and users who may now question the ethical guidelines guiding its AI development. The discontinuation of the Expert Review function represents a reactive rather than proactive stance, indicating the company is addressing legal pressure rather than showing genuine commitment to responsible AI development. Moving forward, Grammarly will almost certainly need to establish more stringent permission frameworks and monitoring systems for any capabilities that employ the use of real people’s names or likenesses. The company’s handling of this crisis may establish a precedent for how other AI firms handle the utilization of well-known individuals in their AI tools.

The pace at which Grammarly disabled the feature points to the company acknowledged the legal, reputational, and business stakes at play. However, the absence of preventive action before the lawsuit indicates that review procedures missed the violations of ethical standards. As the legal proceedings continue, the company could encounter further examination about how numerous content creators were affected and whether settlements will be made above what the lawsuit demands. The case is likely to influence how other AI companies approach the inclusion of real identities in their products in the future.