A new class action claims Grammarly sold AI writing advice under real journalists' names.

On March 11, 2026, journalist Julia Angwin filed a class action lawsuit against Superhuman Platform Inc., the San Francisco-based company that owns and operates Grammarly, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that Grammarly used Angwin's name and the identities of hundreds of other writers, journalists and professionals to power a paid AI writing feature called Expert Review, all without ever asking for their consent. Angwin is an award-winning journalist, contributing opinion editor at The New York Times and founder of Proof News and The Markup.

What is Grammarly's Expert Review feature?

Grammarly is one of the most widely used AI writing tools in the world, claiming 40 million daily users and $700 million in annual revenue. In August 2025, the company introduced Expert Review as part of its $12-per-month Pro subscription.

According to the complaint, when a user activates Expert Review, Grammarly tells them it is "finding experts to review your piece," then displays a notice saying it is "applying ideas from" a specific named expert alongside a short biography.

From there, the tool places comments next to passages in the user's document with writing suggestions like "lead with personal stake" or "sharpen the opening."

The lawsuit alleges the named experts featured in the tool include Angwin, bestselling author Stephen King, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, New York Times reporter Kashmir Hill, journalist Kara Swisher and former FTC commissioner Julie Brill.

How Angwin found out

According to the complaint, Angwin had no idea Grammarly used her name until March 9, 2026, when journalist Casey Newton published a report in his newsletter, Platformer, revealing that Grammarly used his and dozens of other reporters' names to power the feature.

Angwin filed her lawsuit two days later. The complaint alleges that Grammarly analyzed her published work to generate AI writing feedback it then attributed to her. The lawsuit claims the feature gave users the false impression that they received real guidance from a well-known expert when Grammarly generated all of it with AI.

The complaint also notes that Grammarly included a disclaimer buried in its documentation stating that expert references "are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by the referenced expert." But the lawsuit claims this fine print did little to correct the misleading impression the feature created.

Grammarly's response and the feature's timeline

Following Newton's report, Superhuman Platform CEO Shishir Mehrotra announced the company would disable Expert Review and "reimagine" the feature while giving experts more control over how Grammarly represents them. But the complaint alleges Expert Review operated since August 2025, roughly seven months before most of the named individuals reportedly discovered Grammarly used their names.

The legal claims

The lawsuit brings four claims against Superhuman Platform Inc., all centered on the alleged unauthorized use of people's names for commercial gain:

  • California common law right of publicity, which prevents companies from using people's identities commercially without permission
  • California Civil Code Section 3344, a state law that bars companies from using someone's name to sell a product without their consent
  • New York Civil Rights Law, Sections 50 and 51, which make it illegal to use a person's name for advertising or trade without written approval
  • Unjust enrichment, a legal theory that applies when a company profits unfairly at someone else's expense

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, exemplary damages and attorneys' fees.

What this means for Grammarly users

The case is structured as a class action, but the proposed class covers the writers and professionals whose names were allegedly used and not Grammarly subscribers. There is no settlement, no claims process and no money available at this time. The lawsuit remains pending in federal court in Manhattan.