This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
Grammarly's parent company, Superhuman, faced a class-action lawsuit after its 'Expert Review' AI tool generated writing feedback while impersonating prominent journalists, authors, and academics without their permission. The tool, which was behind a paid subscription, used large language models to attribute advice to these individuals that they never provided. Affected parties, including lead plaintiff Julia Angwin, reported that the AI-generated suggestions were of poor quality and potentially damaging to their professional reputations. Superhuman has since discontinued the feature following public backlash and legal action.
Grammarly's Expert Review feature allegedly used a large language model to generate editing suggestions presented under the names of journalists, authors, and academics without their consent. A federal class action filed by Julia Angwin claimed the feature misappropriated identities for commercial gain and attributed advice the named individuals never gave.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
AI systems capable of creating economic or cultural value, including through reproduction of human innovation or creativity (e.g., art, music, writing, coding, invention), destabilizing economic and social systems that rely on human effort. The ubiquity of AI-generated content may lead to reduced appreciation for human skills, disruption of creative and knowledge-based industries, and homogenization of cultural experiences.
Also classified as
The AI generated clunky and fabricated advice, such as inventing fictional stories, and falsely attributed them to real journalists.
Superhuman impersonated real, trusted individuals to drive paid subscriptions for commercial gain without authorization.
The AI system imitated the professional writing and editing styles of real experts without consent, commercially exploiting and devaluing their hard-earned creative skills and livelihoods.
Human
Due to a decision or action made by humans
Intentional
Due to an expected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The incident was primarily caused by a deliberate corporate decision by Superhuman's management to deploy the 'Expert Review' feature using real writers' names without obtaining their consent.
Added categories peak at 2: Minor (Psychological Harm, Direct)
Superhuman's unauthorized deployment of an AI-powered 'Expert Review' tool that impersonated prominent writers represents a minor national security concern. While it highlights emerging risks around synthetic media, copyright, and right of publicity, the incident was limited to commercial litigation and did not impact critical infrastructure, state sovereignty, or national security operations.
The AI system acts as an Assistant by providing writing feedback and editing suggestions to augment the user's writing process, requiring human oversight and validation.
Limited Risk: The system generates AI-generated content mimicking the personas and styles of real people (textual deepfakes/impersonation), which carries transparency obligations under the EU AI Act.
The primary function of the Grammarly Expert Review tool was to assist users with writing by providing feedback, while attempting to replicate the writing styles of prominent authors and journalists.
The reports provide consistent, detailed accounts of the incident from multiple reputable news sources, including direct quotes from the affected parties, legal representatives, and the company's CEO. The legal claims and corporate responses are well-documented.
None
Technology
Generative AI Hallucinations
Models hallucinated advice and fictional stories, providing poor suggestions.
Low Quality AI Mimicry
AI output was low quality, creating complex sentences that ruined prose.
Lack of Consent Check in LLM
Underlying LLM generated suggestions under expert names without consent checks.
Data Inputs
Unlicensed Use of Expert Names
System used names of real experts as identifiers without permission.
Third-Party LLM Training Data
System relied on third-party LLMs trained on public data without filtering.
Human Factors
Lack of Expert Consent
Experts were not consulted or asked for permission before feature launch.
Inadequate Opt-Out Mechanism
Company offered a late email opt-out instead of an opt-in process.
Process and Methods
Lack of Consent Verification Process
No process existed to verify if featured experts consented to likeness use.
Poor Output Quality Control
No review process to catch low-quality or reputation-damaging AI advice.
Management
Prioritizing Growth Over Safety
Management launched the tool to monetize identities without legal clearance.
Deficient Legal Risk Assessment
Management failed to assess right of publicity risks before launching tool.
Regulatory Environment
State-Level Publicity Law Violations
Feature violated NY and CA laws requiring consent for commercial name use.
Lack of Federal AI Consent Laws
Absence of federal laws regulating AI digital replicas and name usage.
AI system involved
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
