Writing platform Grammarly has disabled an AI feature that imitated the writing personas of well-known authors and experts after criticism from those whose identities were used without consent. The feature, called Expert Review, offered writing suggestions modeled on the styles of prominent figures including Stephen King and Carl Sagan.
The tool was taken offline this week by Superhuman following backlash from writers and the filing of a class-action lawsuit in the United States.
Lawsuit Claims Writers’ Identities Were Used Without Consent
The legal case was filed in the Southern District of New York by investigative journalist Julia Angwin, who is serving as the lead plaintiff.
Angwin told the BBC that she was surprised to discover her professional identity had been used as part of a commercial AI product.
She said she had previously associated deepfakes with manipulated images involving public figures and had not expected her editorial expertise to be replicated by an AI system.
The lawsuit alleges the company misappropriated the identities of hundreds of writers to promote its paid subscription service.
According to Angwin’s lawyer, Peter Romer-Friedman, the case has already generated interest from others who believe their names were used without permission.
Romer-Friedman said more than 40 individuals contacted the legal team within 24 hours after the lawsuit was filed. He described the alleged use of the writers’ identities as a violation of the law.
The complaint argues that using a person’s name for commercial purposes without consent is unlawful. It also seeks to prevent the platform from attributing advice to experts who did not provide it.
The filing states that damages exceed $5m (£3.7m), which represents the minimum threshold for jurisdiction in the court. Romer-Friedman said the final amount will depend on the company’s earnings connected to the tool.
Criticism Focused On Accuracy Of AI Imitations
Angwin also criticised the quality of the AI-generated editing advice attributed to her name.
She described the AI’s imitation as a “slopperganger,” a term referencing low-quality content sometimes described online as “AI slop.”
According to Angwin, some suggested edits made sentences more complex rather than improving them. She said the idea that her name would appear alongside advice she did not provide was concerning.
Feature Removal And Company Response
Shishir Mehrotra acknowledged the criticism in a post on LinkedIn.
He said the feature had misrepresented the voices of experts and apologised for the company’s approach.
Mehrotra said the system used publicly available information through third-party large language models to generate writing suggestions inspired by published work from well-known figures.
He added that feedback from critics highlighted concerns about how the AI agent represented those voices and said the company would reconsider its approach.
Superhuman said it had already decided to remove the Expert Review feature for redesign before the lawsuit was filed.
Concerns Over Consent And AI Personas
Earlier in the controversy, the company had suggested that individuals whose names were used could request removal of their personas through an opt-out process, according to reporting by The Verge.
Some writers criticised the proposal.
Wes Fenlon, whose persona appeared in the tool, wrote on the social platform Bluesky that allowing opt-outs by email did not adequately address the issue.
Romer-Friedman argued that writers should not bear responsibility for requesting removal and that consent should have been obtained before their identities were used.
Background On Grammarly’s AI Expansion
Grammarly was founded in 2009 as a writing review tool and expanded into generative AI features in August 2025.
The Expert Review function was introduced as part of that broader set of AI tools. Reports indicate the feature originally launched without the named personas before they were later added.
The company began rebranding to Superhuman in October while retaining Grammarly as the name of its main writing platform.
Responding to the lawsuit, Mehrotra said the claims lack merit and that the company intends to defend against them.
He added that the firm is working on a different approach that would involve experts participating directly in the platform in ways that benefit both users and the individuals involved.
Featured image credits: Wikimedia Commons
For more stories like it, click the +Follow button at the top of this page to follow us.