Grammarly is facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly using the identities of real people, including journalists, in its "Expert Review" AI feature without their consent. The lawsuit, filed by journalist Julia Angwin, claims this violates privacy and publicity rights by using identities for commercial purposes without permission.
The company has since disabled the feature after the issue was publicly highlighted, with several journalists and Verge staff members discovering their identities were used. Grammarly's CEO has apologized, acknowledging the company "fell short" and will rethink its approach.
The main topics covered are the lawsuit over unauthorized use of identities, the specific AI feature involved, and the company's response in disabling it and apologizing.
For months, Grammarly has been using the identities of real people (including us) for its “Expert Review” AI suggestions without getting their permission, and now it’s facing a lawsuit from one of the journalists included, as previously reported by Wired. The class-action complaint filed by journalist Julia Angwin on Wednesday alleges that Superhuman violated the “experts’” privacy and publicity rights by breaking laws against using someone’s identity for commercial purposes without their consent.
One of Grammarly’s ‘experts’ is suing the company over its identity-stealing AI feature
Journalist Julia Angwin has filed a class-action lawsuit after learning she was included in Grammarly’s ‘Expert Review’ AI editing feature.
Journalist Julia Angwin has filed a class-action lawsuit after learning she was included in Grammarly’s ‘Expert Review’ AI editing feature.
Angwin says she found out her identity was used by way of Casey Newton, who is also one of the experts that The Verge uncovered being used by Grammarly when we tested the feature this week. Several current Verge staff members popped up attached to Grammarly’s AI-generated suggestions, too, including editor in chief Nilay Patel.
Superhuman announced earlier Wednesday that it’s disabling the feature, after initially launching an email inbox earlier this week where writers and academics could ask to opt out.
CEO Shishir Mehrotra says that “the agent was designed to help users discover influential perspectives and scholarship relevant to their work, while also providing meaningful ways for experts to build deeper relationships with their fans. We hear the feedback and recognize we fell short on this. I want to apologize and acknowledge that we’ll rethink our approach going forward.”