Grammarly Faces Backlash and Class Action Lawsuit Over AI Expert Review Feature

In a stunning turn of events that has sent shockwaves through the tech and writing communities, Grammarly has found itself at the center of a firestorm of controversy. The popular writing assistant software has pulled its AI-powered Expert Review feature after facing intense criticism for using journalists’ and authors’ identities without permission. This move comes as the company now faces a class action lawsuit accusing it of exploiting writers’ names for its own profit.

The Rise and Fall of Expert Review

Launched alongside seven other AI agents last August, Expert Review was initially available on Grammarly’s Free and $12 Pro plans. The feature was promoted as providing users with feedback on the content of their writing, drawing on insights from subject-matter experts and trusted publications. Users could even personalize which “expert” sources Grammarly drew from by selecting the names of specific authors.

In its blog post announcing the feature, Grammarly wrote, “Expert Review agent offers subject-matter expertise and personalized, topic-specific feedback to elevate writing that meets rigorous academic or professional standards tailored to the user’s field.”

However, the feature’s true nature was revealed last week when Wired reported that Expert Review was offering AI-generated edits in the name of real writers and academics, both living and dead. The tool’s user guide provided a disclaimer that its references to experts “are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities.” Yet, the same page claimed that Expert Review offers “insights from leading professionals, authors, and subject-matter experts.”

Outrage from the Writing Community

Many of the so-called subject-matter experts were far from pleased to discover that Grammarly had been using their identities without their knowledge or consent. Platformer founder Casey Newton, who was among those invoked by Grammarly, wrote, “Grammarly curated a list of real people, gave its models free rein to hallucinate plausible-sounding advice on their behalf, and put it all behind a subscription. That’s a deliberate choice to monetize the identities of real people without involving them, and it sucks.”

Historian Mar Hicks took to Bluesky, stating, “This has got to be some kind of defamation or something. You can’t just steal people’s IP and then pretend they’re saying something they never said.”

Grammarly’s Response and Further Criticism

In response to the backlash, Grammarly initially told Platformer that it would allow writers to email them to opt out of inclusion in its Expert Review feature. This decision was met with further criticism, as experts were not informed that Grammarly was using their identity, nor had they granted permission in the first place. Moreover, this approach did not address Grammarly’s use of dead authors’ identities, which reportedly included astronomer Carl Sagan and intersectional academic bell hooks.

Shishir Mehrotra, CEO of Grammarly developer Superhuman, subsequently announced on Wednesday that the company was pulling Expert Review offline. However, he also indicated that Grammarly intends to eventually bring it back in some form.

“After careful consideration, we have decided to disable Expert Review while we reimagine the feature to make it more useful for users, while giving experts real control over how they want to be represented — or not represented at all,” Mehrotra posted on LinkedIn.

Class Action Lawsuit Filed

The controversy has now escalated to legal action, with New York Times writer Julia Angwin filing a class action lawsuit against Superhuman. The lawsuit, filed in a New York District Court, is seeking damages as well as an injunction to prevent Grammarly from using writers’ identities without their consent.

Angwin stated, “I’m taking this action on behalf of not just myself, but everyone who spent years and decades refining their skills as a writer and editor, only to find an AI impersonating them.”

The law firm representing Angwin, Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC, has put out a call for any writers who were impacted to join the class action. While it’s unclear exactly how many writers’ identities Grammarly allegedly misappropriated, reports suggest it could be a sizable number, including tech journalists from various publications.

Industry Reaction and Future Implications

The Grammarly controversy has sparked a broader conversation about the ethics of AI in creative fields and the rights of individuals to control their own identities and intellectual property. Many in the industry are calling for stricter regulations and clearer guidelines on the use of AI in content creation and review.

As the dust settles on this controversy, it’s clear that Grammarly’s misstep has far-reaching implications for the AI industry as a whole. Companies developing AI-powered tools will likely face increased scrutiny over how they source their data and represent expertise.

The Grammarly saga serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls of AI development and the importance of ethical considerations in technological advancement. As AI continues to evolve and integrate into various aspects of our lives, it’s crucial that developers and companies prioritize transparency, consent, and respect for individual rights.

Tags: #Grammarly #AI #Controversy #ClassAction #WritingCommunity #EthicsInAI #IntellectualProperty #TechBacklash

Viral Sentences:

• “Grammarly is violating the memory of bell hooks AND making AI versions of the rest of us before we’re even dead.”
• “Someone tell me who to sue, not even joking.”
• “That this even existed in the first place suggests a total disconnect from normal human society.”
• “It should’ve been immediately obvious that this was exploitative and creepy and cruel.”
• “I really can’t wait to see how big the lawsuit against grammarly gets and I hope the plaintiffs sue them into complete and fundamental nonexistence.”

,