Grammarly Faces Class Action Over Alleged Use of Writers’ Names to Promote AI Writing Tool
A New York investigative journalist has sued Grammarly, accusing the popular writing platform of using the names of writers and journalists without permission in a paid artificial intelligence feature that generated feedback as if it came from real authors and editors.
Julia Angwin filed the class action lawsuit on March 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Superhuman Platform, Inc., the company that operates Grammarly. The complaint states that the feature, called “Expert Review,” launched in 2025 and included the names of Angwin and author Stephen King, even though they had no involvement in the product.
According to court filings, Grammarly marketed the feature as a way for users to receive feedback reflecting the style or editorial perspective of recognized writers. Users paid about $12 per month for access to the tool. Angwin argues the company did not obtain permission from the individuals whose names were used and that the feature suggested those writers had reviewed or endorsed feedback produced by the software.
Angwin’s lawsuit further alleges that the product attributed opinions and editorial advice to real people who had not written or approved the content. The case claims Grammarly used those names to increase subscriptions and revenue by associating the service with the reputations of writers who were not involved in the feature.
The case was brought on behalf of journalists, authors, editors, and other professionals whose names were allegedly used in the feature without consent. Court filings claim the practice affected hundreds of individuals whose identities were incorporated into the tool’s marketing and output. Class actions allow one person to bring a lawsuit on behalf of a larger group that experienced the same alleged harm.
Several legal claims in the case focus on the commercial use of a person’s identity. The filing includes allegations of misappropriation of name and likeness, violations of the right of publicity, false endorsement, and unjust enrichment. Angwin argues the company profited by associating its product with the reputations of writers who had no role in the service.
Under U.S. law, the right of publicity protects a person’s ability to control how their name, image, or identity is used for commercial purposes. Businesses generally must obtain permission before using someone’s identity to promote or sell a product. Courts often apply these laws when a company uses a person’s reputation or identity to promote a service without consent.
Another claim in the lawsuit involves false endorsement. This legal theory is often used in advertising disputes and applies when a product or advertisement creates the impression that a person supports or is affiliated with a service when that is not actually the case. Courts have found that implying an endorsement from a recognizable figure can mislead consumers and violate federal and state law.
Unjust enrichment is also part of the lawsuit. These claims argue that a company should not keep profits obtained through conduct that allegedly violates another person’s rights. Angwin claims Grammarly financially benefited from associating its subscription service with writers who were not involved in the feature.
Grammarly is one of the most widely used digital writing platforms, offering grammar checking, editing suggestions, and AI-assisted writing features to millions of users. As those tools have grown more sophisticated, technology companies have begun experimenting with features that mimic writing styles or simulate editorial feedback. Those developments have raised legal questions about how existing publicity and advertising laws apply when software invokes the names or reputations of real people.
Angwin argues Grammarly crossed those legal boundaries by incorporating the names of writers into a commercial AI product without consent. The lawsuit asks the court to stop Grammarly from using the names of writers without permission and to award damages and other financial relief to individuals whose identities were allegedly used in the feature.
