Grammarly Is Facing a Class Action Lawsuit Over Its AI ‘Expert Review’ Feature

Summary

Grammarly faces a class-action lawsuit for using AI to impersonate authors and academics without consent. The company has discontinued the feature and apologized for missing the mark.

Key Takeaways

1. Superhuman, the tech company behind the writing software Grammarly, is facing a class action lawsuit over an AI tool that presented editing suggestions as if they came from established authors and academics—none of whom consented to have their names appear within the product.
2. The federal suit, filed Wednesday afternoon in the Southern District of New York, states that Angwin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, “challenges Grammarly’s misappropriation of the names and identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors to earn profits for Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman.”
3. “After careful consideration, we have decided to disable Expert Review as 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,” said Ailian Gan, Superhuman’s director for product management, in a statement to WIRED shortly before the claim was filed.

Statement Breakdown

• Claimed Facts: 60% of statements the article presents as facts
• Opinions: 30% of statements classified as editorial or subjective
• Claims: 10% of statements surfaced for additional reader evaluation

Credibility & Bias Reasoning

Credibility assessment: The article presents factual information about a lawsuit and company statements. It includes quotes from involved parties and references legal principles. However, it relies on a single primary source for the lawsuit's details and company response.

Bias assessment: Tech Industry Scrutiny. The article focuses on a negative event for a tech company, highlighting user and legal complaints. While presenting facts, the framing centers on the company's missteps and the resulting legal action.

Note: This article provides factual reporting on a legal case and company response. Readers should consider the source's focus on tech industry accountability.

Credibility flag: Investigative Reporting

Claimed Facts (8)

• This is a factual statement about the existence of a lawsuit and its premise.
• This statement provides specific details about the plaintiff and the claimed damages.
• This is a direct quote from the lawsuit, presented as a factual claim.
• This states a factual event: the discontinuation of the feature.
• This is a direct quote from a company representative stating a factual decision.
• This statement provides factual background information about the feature's addition.
• This statement presents a legal assertion as a fact.
• This is a direct quote from the attorney expressing a legal opinion presented as fact.

Opinions (6)

• This statement expresses a broader societal concern and justification for the lawsuit, which is subjective.
• This statement describes Angwin's past writings, implying a perspective but not directly stating an opinion within this article.
• While presented in the lawsuit, this is a legal interpretation and assertion of what is 'unlawful,' which can be debated and is framed as a strong opinion.
• This statement outlines the goals of the lawsuit, which are based on Angwin's interpretation of the situation and desired outcomes.
• This statement expresses the company's intent and perceived value of the feature, which is subjective.
• This is an admission of failure and a subjective assessment of their performance.

Claims (3)

• This statement is a personal reflection and comparison that is not directly supported by evidence within the article and is a subjective generalization.
• This is an exclamation of surprise and disbelief, lacking factual substance.
• The phrase 'apparently regurgitating their life's work' is an interpretation and potentially an exaggeration of the AI's output, lacking concrete proof of 'regurgitation' in this context.

Key Sources

• Miles Klee — Author
• Julia Angwin — Named Plaintiff, Investigative Journalist, Founder of The Markup
• The Markup — Nonprofit news organization
• Ailian Gan — Superhuman’s director for product management
• WIRED — Media Outlet
• Peter Romer-Friedman — Angwin’s attorney
• New York Times — Newspaper