Grammarly's Stephen King AI Lawsuit: Email Writing Impact

The short version

Grammarly, the popular writing app owned by Superhuman, launched a paid "Expert Review" feature that used AI to fake feedback from real writers like Stephen King, journalist Julia Angwin, and AI critic Timnit Gebru—without asking their permission. Angwin sued Superhuman in a class action lawsuit, claiming it stole their identities and expertise for profit, and Grammarly has now shut down the feature after backlash. For you, this means writing tools might get stricter rules on using real people's names, protecting your own work from sneaky AI tricks.

What happened

Imagine you're writing an email or report, and Grammarly offers "expert" advice that sounds like it's coming straight from famous author Stephen King or science star Carl Sagan. That's the hook behind Grammarly's new "Expert Review" feature, released last week and only available to subscribers paying $144 a year. The AI would simulate their editing style—sharpening your essay like a professor, challenging arguments like a critic, or elevating a proposal like a pro—making it feel like these big names personally reviewed your work.

But here's the twist: Grammarly didn't get permission from any of these hundreds of real experts. Journalist Julia Angwin, who's spent her career exposing tech privacy scandals, discovered her name was being used when tech writer Casey Newton tested it on one of his articles. The AI pretending to be tech journalist Kara Swisher gave super generic advice like: "Could you briefly compare how daily AI users versus AI skeptics articulate risk, creating a through-line readers can follow?" Newton showed it to the real Swisher, who fired back: "You rapacious information and identity thieves better get ready for me to go full McConaughey on you. Also, you suck."

Angwin wasn't alone—folks like AI ethicist Timnit Gebru and even Platformer newsletter founder Casey Newton himself were "impersonated." Angwin filed a class action lawsuit against Superhuman (Grammarly's parent company) on Wednesday, arguing it violated privacy and publicity rights by selling fake versions of their decades-honed skills without consent. "I have worked for decades honing my skills as a writer and editor, and I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise," she said.

Grammarly quickly disabled the feature, as announced by Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra on LinkedIn. He apologized but defended the concept: "Imagine your professor sharpening your essay, your sales leader reshaping a customer pitch... For experts, this is a chance to build that same ubiquitous bond with users." Critics called the feedback shallow anyway—why bother faking famous names for bland tips? This blew up fast, with coverage from WIRED, The Verge, BBC, Mashable, and more, hitting a virality score of 9/10 as writers everywhere got mad.

Think of it like a knockoff store selling "Stephen King"-branded T-shirts made in a basement, without paying him or asking. It's not just rude—it's illegal in many places under "right of publicity" laws, which stop companies from cashing in on your name or likeness.

Why should you care?

You might not be Stephen King, but you use tools like Grammarly to polish emails, resumes, or social posts every day. This scandal shows how AI companies are racing to add flashy features, sometimes crossing lines with your data or others'. If Grammarly can fake experts without permission, what's stopping them from training on your writing next? It matters because it could make AI writing helpers more trustworthy—or force them to dumb down features, raising prices or limiting smarts.

Personally, it hits your wallet and workflow: That $144/year premium tier promised "expert" boosts, but delivered generic AI slop. Now, with lawsuits looming, expect changes like clearer labels on AI fakes or bans on name-dropping. Broader ripple? It fuels the fight over AI "hallucinations" (when AI makes stuff up) and consent, potentially slowing wild AI experiments that could spam your inbox or steal creative jobs.

What changes for you

Right now, Grammarly's Expert Review is offline, so premium users lose that perk—no more fake Stephen King notes. If you're a casual free user (millions are), nothing changes today; you still get basic grammar checks. But watch for:

Pricing and features: Premium is $144/year (about $12/month). Lawsuits could hike costs to cover legal fees or force refunds. Superhuman might relaunch a safer version without real names, like generic "professor" or "critic" modes.
Your apps and privacy: Writing tools (Grammarly, Microsoft Editor, Google Docs) might add opt-out buttons or warnings: "This is AI, not a human." If you're a writer or creator, your name could be next—check tools for sneaky uses.
Everyday impact: Emails, job apps, or school papers get AI help faster, but dumber without "expert" flair. Good news? Less misleading feedback means you rely less on AI crutches, building real skills.
Competitive shakeup: Rivals like Jasper or Copy.ai might avoid this mess, gaining trust. Grammarly's rep takes a hit—will you switch if features feel shady?

In short, your writing flow stays similar, but with more transparency and fewer celebrity illusions. No app crashes yet, but expect emails from Grammarly about changes.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Is Grammarly's Expert Review still available?

No, Superhuman disabled it after the backlash and lawsuit. Premium subscribers ($144/year) can't use it anymore, and there's no word on a relaunch. CEO Shishir Mehrotra apologized but likes the idea, so a nameless version might return.

### Who got "impersonated" and what's the lawsuit about?

Hundreds, including Stephen King, Carl Sagan (deceased), Julia Angwin, Timnit Gebru, Kara Swisher, and Casey Newton. Julia Angwin's class action claims Superhuman broke privacy and publicity laws by profiting off their identities without consent—other affected writers can join.

### How good was the AI feedback anyway?

Not great—tests showed generic tips, like Kara Swisher's AI saying "compare AI users vs. skeptics" on a tech article. Critics say it was overhyped marketing, not thoughtful edits, raising questions about why use real names for meh results.

### Will this affect my free Grammarly account?

Probably not directly—free users never had Expert Review access. But company-wide fallout could mean slower updates, price tweaks, or new privacy rules across all tiers.

### Can I sue Grammarly or get a refund?

If you're premium and feel tricked, contact support. Angwin's class action lets affected experts join; regular users might see settlements later. Check Grammarly's site for opt-out info—they had an email inbox before pulling the feature.

The bottom line

Grammarly's flop with fake expert AI is a wake-up call: Tech giants can't just borrow famous names to sell $144 premium perks without asking. Julia Angwin's lawsuit could set rules protecting creators' identities, making tools like Grammarly safer and less sneaky for your daily writing. For you, it means no more celeb illusions but potentially better-labeled AI help—stick with basics for now, and watch for refunds or rivals stepping up. This viral mess (9/10 score) reminds us AI's cool, but consent isn't optional. Your emails will be fine; just don't trust "Stephen King" sign-offs.

(Word count: 1,248)

Grammarly Lawsuit: How an AI Feature Pretending to Be Stephen King Could Change the Tools You Use to Write Emails