Journalist Julia Angwin filed a proposed federal class action on March 11, 2026, accusing Superhuman Platform—the company that owns and operates Grammarly—of using the names and identities of writers, journalists and other professionals in a paid AI feature without their consent. Superhuman disabled the feature the same day after public criticism. The complaint alleges unauthorized commercial use of people’s identities and AI-generated advice associated with them; it does not establish that a court has found Grammarly liable.
Read the complaint and the plaintiffs’ case page for the filings and counsel’s current description of the case.
What Grammarly’s Expert Review showed users
According to Angwin’s complaint, Expert Review launched in August 2025 as a paid feature that cost $12 per month. A user could upload or compose text, after which Grammarly said it was reading the draft and finding relevant experts. The interface could then display language such as “Applying ideas from Julia Angwin,” place short comments beside parts of the draft, and describe a fuller suggestion as “inspired” by the named person. Users could insert an example revision.
The complaint says the advice was generated from publicly available work and was not supplied by the people whose names appeared in the interface. The available evidence does not show that those individuals personally reviewed users’ writing or operated the tool.
#1 Best Overall
Who appeared in the feature?
The complaint lists examples including Julia Angwin, Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Kara Swisher, Kashmir Hill and Julie Brill. It alleges that hundreds of journalists, authors, editors, writers and other professionals were used in the same way. Being listed in the complaint does not mean every named person is a plaintiff, supports every allegation or suffered identical harm.
The materials also describe a mixture of living and deceased figures. That matters because publicity and name-use rights differ by state and can depend on whether a person is living, whether an estate is involved and which legal theory applies. New York’s cited statute, for example, addresses use of a living person’s name, while California and common-law claims can involve different rules.
Who sued, and what is the case?
Angwin is an investigative journalist, editor, author and founder of The Markup and Proof News. She sued Superhuman Platform, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is Julia Angwin v. Superhuman Platform, Inc., Case No. 26 Civ. 02005.
It is a proposed class action, not a certified class. The complaint proposes a nationwide class of people whose names were used in Expert Review without consent, along with a New York subclass. Class certification would require a later court decision.
Recommended Free Tools
The legal theories in plain English
The complaint focuses on commercial identity and publicity rights, not primarily on copyright infringement. It alleges that Grammarly placed recognizable names and reputations at the center of a paid service and connected those people to advice they never gave.
California common-law right of publicity
Angwin alleges that using a person’s identity for commercial advantage without consent can violate California’s common-law publicity rights. The claim is about control over identity and commercial association, not simply whether text was copied.
Rank #3
- Improve and refine your student's sentence and paragraph skills
- Lessons and activities progress from writing sentences to writing paragraphs
- There are complete teacher instructions and over 70 reproducible models and student writing forms
- Grades 4-6
- 136 pages
California Civil Code section 3344
The complaint invokes California Civil Code § 3344, which addresses knowing commercial use of another person’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness without prior consent. Whether the alleged interface and marketing satisfy that statute is for the court to decide.
New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51
The lawsuit alleges that names were used for advertising or trade without the written consent required by New York law and seeks relief under sections 50 and 51. Those are pleaded claims, not established violations.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Unjust enrichment
Unjust enrichment is pleaded as an alternative theory. In broad terms, Angwin argues that Superhuman benefited from the alleged use of people’s identities without authorization.
Why this is more than a dispute about training data
Publicly available writing and a person’s identity are not the same legal issue. The complaint says Grammarly analyzed public work to infer what an expert might advise, then marketed the result through that expert’s name. A generic option such as “make this clearer” raises a different question from a message that says it is applying ideas from a specific, recognizable person.
The alleged injury also goes beyond lost licensing revenue. The complaint emphasizes loss of control over identity and the risk that a person could be associated with advice they did not approve and might reject. Calling the controversy “identity-stealing” is a description of that allegation, not a legal finding of identity theft.
Timeline
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| August 2025 | Expert Review reportedly launched, according to the complaint; the complaint identifies a historical price of $12 per month. |
| March 11, 2026 | Angwin filed the proposed class action in the Southern District of New York. Superhuman disabled Expert Review after public criticism. |
| August 18, 2026 | The plaintiffs’ counsel page described the case as pending. No later ruling, settlement, class-certification order or dismissal was verified in the supplied materials. |
Superhuman said the feature was intended to help users discover influential perspectives and scholarship. Its stated direction was to rethink the product and potentially let experts decide whether and how they participate. That is not a confirmed opt-in system or a promise that the feature will return.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesWhat disabling the feature does—and does not—settle
Taking Expert Review offline can stop new uses, but it does not automatically resolve allegations about earlier commercial use. Angwin’s complaint seeks class certification, compensation, restitution, declaratory relief and injunctions. Whether removal affects liability, damages or the need for an injunction is an issue for the litigation.
What the lawsuit does not establish
- It does not establish that Grammarly committed a legal violation.
- It does not make every person whose name allegedly appeared a plaintiff or certified class member.
- It does not prove that Grammarly represented the named people as literally operating the tool.
- It does not decide whether all AI style imitation is unlawful.
- It does not turn the case into a conventional copyright lawsuit.
- It does not show that Expert Review has been permanently discontinued.
Why the case matters for AI products
The dispute tests boundaries that many AI developers will face:
- Whether a company can commercially invoke a real person’s name without permission.
- Whether “inspired by” language is enough to avoid an implied endorsement or association.
- How using public work differs from marketing a named persona.
- Whether consent, licensing and control should be offered before a person’s identity is simulated.
- How rights differ for living people, deceased figures, estates and public personalities.
- Whether a disclaimer changes a user’s understanding when recognizable names help sell the product.
The answers will depend on the interface, the commercial purpose, the jurisdiction, the person’s status, any consent and the evidence developed in the case. The complaint alone cannot resolve those questions.
Current status
As of the status information dated August 18, 2026, the case remained pending according to plaintiffs’ counsel. It was filed as a proposed class action, and no later outcome was established in the supplied materials. Potential class members should rely on court filings and qualified legal advice rather than treating counsel’s website guidance as an individualized legal determination.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →The Bottom Line
Grammarly’s alleged problem is not merely that an AI learned from public writing. Angwin’s lawsuit says the company put real people’s names and reputations at the center of a paid product, then generated advice those people neither approved nor gave. The court—not the headline—will determine whether that crossed the legal lines for publicity, name use and unjust enrichment.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
