Last week, Grammarly launched a contentious AI-powered tool designed to mimic professional critique, creating the illusion of receiving revision suggestions from figures such as author Stephen King, the late scientist Carl Sagan, or technology journalist Kara Swisher. However, Grammarly neglected to obtain consent from the numerous specialists it integrated into this functionality, dubbed “Expert Review,” to employ their identities.
Journalist Julia Angwin, one of the impacted authors, has initiated a collective legal action against Superhuman, the holding corporation behind Grammarly. She contends that the company infringed upon the privacy and publicity entitlements of herself and the other writers it replicated. Such a class action permits other authors to join Angwin’s legal proceedings.
“I have dedicated decades to refining my craft as a writer and editor, and I am dismayed to learn that a technology firm is marketing a counterfeit rendition of my diligently acquired proficiency,” Angwin declared in an official release.
The circumstances are highly paradoxical — Angwin has devoted her professional life to spearheading inquiries into technology companies’ consequences for personal data security. Additionally, other detractors of such technological applications, including distinguished AI ethicist Timnit Gebru, were likewise featured in Grammarly’s “Expert Review.”
The “Expert Review” functionality, accessible exclusively to annual subscribers remitting $144, unsurprisingly falls short of fulfilling its pledge of insightful commentary.
Casey Newton, the creator and chief editor of the technology publication Platformer, and another individual whose persona was mimicked by Grammarly, submitted one of his writings to the utility. He received commentary from Grammarly’s simulacrum of technology journalist Kara Swisher. Swisher’s simulated persona yielded such unspecific suggestions that it prompts inquiry into the rationale behind the company undertaking the elaborate process of leveraging these writers’ resemblances initially.
Here is what Grammarly’s simulacrum of Kara Swisher advised him: “Could you succinctly contrast the manner in which daily AI users versus AI skeptics express peril, thereby establishing a coherent narrative for readers to track?”
Techcrunch gathering
San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026
Newton conveyed the communication from the artificial intelligence rendition of Kara Swisher to the genuine, living individual, Kara Swisher.
“You predatory data and persona misappropriators should prepare for my full-throttle McConaughey-esque retaliation,” Swisher messaged Newton (in reference to Grammarly). “Furthermore, you are abysmal.”
Grammarly has since deactivated the “Expert Review” functionality, as per a LinkedIn update by Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra. While Mehrotra issued an apology, he persisted in advocating the concept behind the feature.
“Envision your professor refining your academic paper, your sales leader reworking a client presentation, a discerning reviewer questioning your assertions, or a prominent authority enhancing your proposition,” he penned. “For specialists, this presents an opportunity to forge that identical pervasive connection with users, similar to Grammarly’s own success.”
{content}
Source: {feed_title}