Grammarly's parent company, Superhuman, is now facing a federal class action lawsuit. The case, filed in New York, centers on the company's now-discontinued "Expert Review" AI feature. The tool presented editing suggestions as if they came from specific, real people—including journalists like plaintiff Julia Angwin and figures like Stephen King—without their permission.

Angwin, the founder of the nonprofit newsroom The Markup, is the suit's named plaintiff. It seeks damages exceeding $5 million for a class of hundreds of writers, journalists, and editors. The complaint argues Superhuman unlawfully profited by using their names and identities commercially.

The legal action follows significant criticism that led Superhuman to disable the feature. Product lead Ailian Gan stated the company would "reimagine" it to give experts control over their representation, admitting, "We clearly missed the mark."

The feature, part of a suite of AI tools added last year, used a large language model to mimic a veteran writer's critique. A disclaimer noted the experts weren't involved, but many, including WIRED staff, objected to the appropriation of their likeness and life's work.

"Legally, we think it's a pretty straightforward case," said Angwin's attorney, Peter Romer-Friedman, citing New York and California laws against unauthorized commercial use of a person's name. He framed the suit as a pushback against the broader appropriation of professional reputations by AI systems.

Angwin told WIRED she was shocked to discover her digital clone. "You know, deepfakes are something I always think celebrities are getting caught up in, not regular journalists," she said. She also criticized the quality of the advice, noting it often made writing more complex and less clear. "I was surprised at how bad it was," she added.

Superhuman has not commented on the lawsuit. CEO Shishir Mehrotra previously posted about pulling the feature, acknowledging the "valid critical feedback" that it misrepresented experts' voices.

Source: Wired