The short version
Grammarly, the popular writing app owned by Superhuman, used real journalists' and writers' names and identities in its AI "Expert Review" feature without asking permission, making it seem like these experts endorsed or reviewed the suggestions. This sparked huge backlash, leading the company to shut down the feature and face a class-action lawsuit from journalist Julia Angwin on behalf of hundreds of affected people. For you, it means AI tools might soon ask for real consent before using someone's name, making writing apps more trustworthy and protecting everyday users from sneaky identity tricks.
What happened
Imagine you're using Grammarly to polish an email or report—it checks your grammar, suggests better words, and sometimes pops up an "Expert Review" note saying something like, "Journalist Julia Angwin recommends shortening this sentence." Sounds helpful, right? But here's the catch: Grammarly (recently bought by the email app Superhuman) pulled names, photos, and bios from hundreds of real writers, authors, journalists, and editors—like Julia Angwin—without ever asking them. It was all buried in fine print, with a tiny disclaimer saying these weren't real endorsements.
Journalists like Angwin and Casey Newton discovered this through digging into Grammarly's own docs and reports from sites like The Verge and Platformer. People were furious—it felt like identity theft for profit. Superhuman quickly backpedaled: They launched an opt-out email for writers, but it was too late. CEO Shishir Mehrotra apologized on LinkedIn, promising a future where experts choose to join in and control how they're shown. Product director Ailian Gan announced they'd disable the feature entirely to "reimagine" it with real control for the experts. Then, boom—on Wednesday, Angwin filed a federal class-action lawsuit in New York, accusing them of breaking privacy and publicity laws by using identities commercially without consent.
Think of it like a restaurant menu claiming "Chef Julia's special recipe" without her okay—it's using her good name to sell more food, even if she's never stepped in the kitchen.
Why should you care?
You probably use tools like Grammarly daily for emails, job apps, or schoolwork without thinking twice. This mess shows how AI companies can quietly borrow real people's cred to make their tech seem smarter or more reliable, which builds your trust in the app. If they're sloppy with experts' names now, what stops them from mishandling your data next? It matters because it could lead to stricter rules on AI consent, making apps safer and less sneaky. Plus, with backlash this big, your favorite writing helpers might get better (or glitchier) as companies scramble to fix features.
What changes for you
Right now, nothing huge disrupts your Grammarly flow—the "Expert Review" is already turned off, so your suggestions won't reference fake experts anymore. But watch for updates: Superhuman says they're rebuilding it so real experts can opt in and shape how they're used, which might mean more genuine tips or none at all. If the lawsuit wins, Grammarly/Superhuman could pay damages, and it might inspire similar suits against other AI tools, slowing down "helpful" features until they get permission slips.
For regular folks, this pushes the whole AI writing world toward transparency. Apps might add clear labels like "AI-generated, no real person involved" or ask you for consent on data use. Costs probably stay the same (Grammarly's free tier is still free), but expect fewer surprise name-drops in feedback. If you're a writer or creator, check if your name was used—Superhuman had an opt-out, and the lawsuit represents "hundreds" like you. Everyday users benefit from AI feeling less like a black box and more like a tool that respects boundaries.
Frequently Asked Questions
### What exactly was Grammarly's "Expert Review" feature?
It was an AI add-on in Grammarly that gave writing tips "as if" reviewed by real experts, popping up their names and bios next to suggestions like better phrasing. But it used these identities without permission, making it look like pros endorsed Grammarly. The company has now disabled it amid the uproar.
### Is Grammarly shutting down completely because of this?
No, just the Expert Review feature is gone for now—they're redesigning it to let real experts opt in and control their involvement. Your regular Grammarly grammar checks, tone tweaks, and rewrites keep working as usual, free or paid.
### Can I still trust Grammarly with my writing?
Mostly yes—core features are solid and unchanged. But this highlights why reading privacy fine print matters; the lawsuit pushes for better consent rules industry-wide, so future AI feedback might come with clearer "this is just AI" labels to build trust.
### Who owns Grammarly now, and why Superhuman?
Superhuman, a fast email app, bought Grammarly recently. They were behind this feature, but the CEO apologized publicly and promised fixes. It doesn't directly change how you use either app day-to-day.
### Will this lawsuit affect other AI writing tools like me using ChatGPT or QuillBot?
Possibly—it sets a precedent for needing consent before using real names in AI outputs. You might see more disclaimers or opt-outs in competitors, making AI feel less "magical" but more honest and legal.
The bottom line
Grammarly's blunder with unapproved "expert" names shows AI's growing pains: companies rushing cool features can cross privacy lines, but public pushback and lawsuits force quick fixes. For you, it means writing apps like Grammarly stay useful without the creepy impersonations, and the industry might adopt "ask first" rules that protect everyone—not just famous writers. Keep an eye on updates; this could make your daily typing smoother and more ethical. Smart move checking tools' privacy pages now.