Grammarly pulls AI author-impersonation tool after backlash.

Writing tool Grammarly has swiftly disabled an AI-powered feature that mimicked the distinct writing styles of prominent figures, including beloved horror author Stephen King and pioneering scientist Carl Sagan, following a significant backlash from individuals whose professional identities were appropriated. The feature, known as "Expert Review," offered users writing feedback purportedly "inspired by" the styles of famous authors and academics. However, it was abruptly taken offline this week by Superhuman, the tech firm that operates Grammarly, after facing mounting resistance, including a multi-million dollar lawsuit, from writers who found their names and reputations being leveraged as "AI personas" without their explicit consent.

Shishir Mehrotra, the chief executive of Superhuman, issued a public apology on LinkedIn, acknowledging that the tool had indeed "misrepresented" the voices and expertise of the individuals it purported to emulate. At the forefront of the legal challenge is investigative journalist Julia Angwin, a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. Angwin is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed against Superhuman and Grammarly in the Southern District of New York. In an interview with the BBC, Angwin expressed her profound shock at discovering her professional identity being marketed as a commercial product. "I had thought of deepfakes as something that happens to celebrities, mostly around images," she stated, highlighting a common perception of AI misuse. "Editing is a skill… it’s my livelihood, but it’s not something I’ve ever thought about anyone trying to steal from me before. I didn’t even think it was stealable."

The legal filing alleges that the tech firm engaged in the misappropriation of the identities of "hundreds" of writers, aiming to drive profits for its paid subscription service. According to Peter Romer-Friedman, Angwin’s lawyer, the case has already garnered substantial momentum. "We’ve heard from over 40 people in the last 24 hours since we filed the suit," he revealed, unequivocally describing the company’s actions as a "brazen violation of the law." The lawsuit contends that using individuals’ names for commercial purposes without their consent is unlawful and seeks to compel the platform to cease attributing advice to experts who "never gave" it.

The filing specifies that the claimed damages exceed $5 million (£3.7 million), though Romer-Friedman noted that this figure represents a minimum jurisdictional requirement. The true financial impact will be calculated based on the firm’s earnings generated from the controversial tool. For Angwin, the perceived poor quality of the AI’s output compounded the offense. She described the imitation as a "slopperganger," a term referencing the often-criticized, low-quality content generated by AI, frequently referred to as "AI slop" on social media. "The edits were not good. The ones that they were attributing to me… were making the sentences worse, more complex," she lamented. "The idea that my name would be in there giving people terrible advice is actually really appalling."

Grammarly, originally founded in 2009 as a straightforward writing-review tool, began integrating a suite of generative AI tools in August 2025. The Expert Review function was a component of this expansion, and it appears to have launched without the prominent named personas that were introduced later. Although the company officially began rebranding to Superhuman in October, Grammarly remained the established name for its core service. As criticism intensified in the preceding days, Superhuman initially indicated that it would retain the feature but allow named individuals to "opt-out," as reported by The Verge. Wes Fenlon, a gaming journalist whose persona was reportedly used in the tool, expressed his strong disapproval on the social media platform BlueSky: "Opt-out via email is a laughably inadequate recourse for selling a product that verges on impersonation and profits on unearned credibility." Romer-Friedman echoed this sentiment, arguing that the burden of obtaining consent should have rested entirely with the writers, not with them having to actively opt out.

In response to the burgeoning controversy, Mehrotra acknowledged, "Over the past week, we received valid critical feedback from experts who are concerned that the agent misrepresented their voices. This kind of scrutiny improves our products, and we take it seriously." He explained that the AI agent had drawn upon "publicly available information from third-party LLMs to surface writing suggestions inspired by the published work of influential voices." The company’s chief executive further stated, "We hear the feedback and recognize we fell short on this." Addressing the lawsuit directly, Mehrotra informed the BBC, "We announced that Expert Review was being taken down for a redesign before the claim was filed, and in its short lifespan, it had very little usage. We are sorry, and we will rethink our approach going forward." However, he maintained that the legal claims within the lawsuit are "without merit" and vowed that the company would "strongly defend against them." He concluded by stating that the firm is actively working on a "better approach to bringing experts onto our platform" in a manner that will "benefit both users and experts."