Superhuman, the tech company behind the writing software Grammarly, is facing a class action lawsuit over an AI tool that presented editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics—none of whom consented to have their names appear within the product.
Julia Angwin, an award-winning investigative journalist who founded The Markup, a nonprofit news organization that covers the impact of technology on society, is the only named plaintiff in the suit, which does not call for a specific amount in damages but argues that damages across the plaintiff class are in excess of $5 million. She was among the many individuals, alongside Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson, offered up via Grammarly’s “Expert Review” tool as a kind of virtual editor for users.
The federal suit, filed Wednesday afternoon in the Southern District of New York, states that Angwin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, “challenges Grammarly’s misappropriation of the names and identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors to earn profits for Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman.”
The complaint comes as Superhuman has already decided to discontinue the feature amid significant public backlash. “After careful consideration, we have decided to disable Expert Review as we reimagine the feature to make it more useful for users, while giving experts real control over how they want to be represented—or not represented at all,” said Ailian Gan, Superhuman’s director for product management, in a statement to WIRED shortly before the claim was filed. “We built the agent to help users tap into the insights of thought leaders and experts and to give experts new ways to share their knowledge and reach new audiences. Based on the feedback we’ve received, we clearly missed the mark. We are sorry and will do things differently going forward.”
As WIRED reported earlier this month, Superhuman last year added a suite of AI-powered widgets to the platform, including one that purported to have a veteran writer (living or dead) weigh in with a critique of the user’s text. While a disclaimer clarified that none of the people cited had endorsed or directly participated in the development of this tool, which leveraged an underlying large language model, various writers, including WIRED journalists, expressed frustration over Grammarly invoking their likenesses and apparently regurgitating their life’s work with these AI agents.
Angwin’s attorney Peter Romer-Friedman says that longstanding laws in New York and California, where Superhuman is based, clearly prohibit the commercial use of a person’s name and likeness without their permission. “Legally, we think it's a pretty straightforward case,” he tells WIRED. “More broadly, one of the reasons why we're filing this case is, you know, we can see what's happening in our society: that lots of professionals who spend years, or in Julia's case, decades, honing a skill or a trade, then see that their name or their skills are being appropriated by others without their consent.”
As a New York Times opinion writer, Angwin has written extensively about how Silicon Valley giants have eroded privacy in the 21st century.
“Contrary to the apparent belief of some tech companies, it is unlawful to appropriate peoples’ names and identities for commercial purposes, whether those people are famous or not,” the lawsuit states. “Through this action, Ms. Angwin seeks to stop Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman, from trading on her name and those of hundreds of other journalists, authors, editors, and even lawyers, and to stop Grammarly from attributing words to them that they never uttered and advice that they never gave.”
Angwin tells WIRED that when she learned of Grammarly’s use of her name and reputation from the tech newsletter Platformer, she was surprised to have been cloned, so to speak. “You know, deepfakes are something I always think celebrities are getting caught up in, not regular journalists,” she says. “I was just like, are you kidding me?”
Angwin took further offense at the advice that her digital doppelgänger was dispensing. “It wasn't even just anodyne,” she says. “It was actually kind of actively making it worse.” In one example, Angwin says, Grammarly’s version of her suggested that a simple sentence be revised to be longer and more complex in a way that “actually made it harder to understand.” In another case, it advised the user to expand on a theme that was not actually pertinent to the text.
“It felt very scattershot to me,” Angwin says. “I was surprised at how bad it was.”
Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra separately posted about the decision to discontinue “expert review” on LinkedIn on Wednesday. “Over the past week, we received valid critical feedback from experts who are concerned that the agent misrepresented their voices,” Mehrotra wrote. “This kind of scrutiny improves our products, and we take it seriously.”
Superhuman did not immediately comment on Angwin’s lawsuit.
Facts Only
Superhuman, the tech company behind Grammarly, is facing a class action lawsuit over its AI tool "Expert Review."
The tool presented editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics without their consent.
Julia Angwin, an investigative journalist and founder of The Markup, is the named plaintiff in the suit.
The lawsuit does not specify damages but argues they exceed $5 million.
The suit was filed in the Southern District of New York.
Superhuman has discontinued the "Expert Review" feature amid public backlash.
The tool included a disclaimer stating that none of the cited individuals had endorsed or participated in its development.
Writers, including WIRED journalists, expressed frustration over the tool's use of their likenesses.
Superhuman's director of product management, Ailian Gan, stated the company would reimagine the feature to give experts control over their representation.
Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra acknowledged the tool misrepresented experts' voices and apologized.
Angwin's attorney argues that New York and California laws prohibit commercial use of a person's name and likeness without permission.
Angwin criticized the quality of the advice generated by the tool, calling it "scattershot" and unhelpful.
Executive Summary
Superhuman, the parent company of Grammarly, is facing a class action lawsuit over its AI-powered "Expert Review" tool, which presented editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics without their consent. The named plaintiff, Julia Angwin, an investigative journalist and founder of The Markup, argues that the tool misappropriated her name and likeness for commercial purposes, violating longstanding laws in New York and California. The lawsuit does not specify damages but suggests they exceed $5 million. Superhuman has already discontinued the feature amid public backlash, acknowledging that it "missed the mark" and failed to give experts control over their representation. The tool, which used AI to simulate critiques from figures like Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson, included a disclaimer that none of the cited individuals had endorsed it. However, many writers, including Angwin, expressed frustration over the tool's misuse of their identities and the poor quality of the advice it generated. Superhuman's CEO has apologized and pledged to reimagine the feature with greater expert control, but the lawsuit seeks to prevent further unauthorized use of names and identities.
The case highlights broader tensions around AI's use of personal identities and professional reputations without consent. Angwin's legal team argues that the tool violated commercial appropriation laws, while Superhuman maintains it intended to help users access expert insights. The outcome could set a precedent for how AI tools leverage personal brands and intellectual contributions.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that Superhuman's "Expert Review" tool crossed a legal and ethical line by commercially exploiting the names and reputations of professionals without consent. The lawsuit, led by Julia Angwin, frames this as a clear violation of established laws protecting personal identity, particularly in states like New York and California. Superhuman's swift discontinuation of the feature and public apology suggest an acknowledgment of missteps, but the legal action underscores deeper concerns about AI's role in appropriating human expertise. The tool's disclaimer—clarifying that experts had not endorsed it—does little to mitigate the harm of associating their names with potentially poor or misleading advice, as Angwin's experience demonstrates.
Patterns detected: ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey (Superhuman's disclaimer as a shield while still leveraging expert names for credibility), ARC-0024 Ambiguity (vague framing of AI-generated advice as "expert" without clear boundaries).
The root cause here is the tension between AI's capacity to mimic human expertise and the legal/ethical frameworks governing identity and intellectual property. Superhuman's tool reflects a broader paradigm in tech where innovation outpaces regulatory and social norms, assuming that "inspiration" or "simulation" of human work is permissible as long as it's disclaimed. This echoes historical patterns of corporate overreach in digital spaces, where user data and identities are commodified until pushback forces retraction.
The implications for human agency are significant. If AI tools can freely invoke the names of experts—living or dead—to lend credibility to their outputs, it devalues the actual labor and skill behind those experts' work. The second-order consequences include potential erosion of trust in AI-assisted tools and a chilling effect on professionals who may fear their identities being co-opted. Who benefits? Superhuman, in the short term, by leveraging recognizable names to attract users. Who bears the cost? The experts whose reputations are tied to advice they never gave, and users who may receive subpar guidance under false pretenses.
Bridge questions: How should AI tools balance innovation with the protection of individual identity? What mechanisms could ensure experts have meaningful control over how their names and work are used? Would your perspective change if the tool had been opt-in for experts, with clear compensation?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign might frame this as a frivolous attack on innovation, portraying critics as resistant to progress. The actual content does not match this pattern; instead, it presents a legitimate legal challenge grounded in existing laws and ethical concerns. The narrative aligns with principled pushback against unchecked AI deployment, not manufactured outrage.
Sentinel — Human
The article exhibits strong human signals, including emotional quotes, personal anecdotes, and specific attributions, with no detectable signs of synthetic generation.