IP Law Daily, PUBLICITY RIGHTS NEWS: Class action complaint alleges Grammarly’s AI ‘Expert Review‘ function misappropriates names and identities of journalists, authors, writers, and editors, (Mar 12, 2026)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

Journalist Julia Angwin, purportedly on behalf of a class of “experts” whose names and identities are used in the “Expert Review” tool, brings claims under California common law and California and New York publicity rights statutes.

Grammarly’s “Expert Review” function offered to paying subscribers, which purports to provide feedback on customers’ writing from well-known journalists, writers, authors, and editors (the “Experts”), misappropriates the Experts’ names and identities in violation of California common law and New York and California publicity rights statutes because Grammarly neither sought nor obtained the Experts’ consent, a new class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges. Journalist Julia Angwin, purportedly on behalf of a class of “hundreds” of Experts whose names and identities are used by Grammarly, has brought claims for violation of California’s common law right to publicity/misappropriation of likeness, violation of California’s and New York’s respective publicity right statutes (California Civil Code § 3344, New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51), and unjust enrichment against Superhuman Platform, Inc., the owner and operator of Grammarly (“Grammarly”). Angwin seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorney fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest (Angwin v. Superhuman Platform, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02005 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2026)).

“Expert Review” function. In 2025, Grammarly introduced its Expert Review tool, which purports to enable users to receive feedback on their writing from Experts such as Angwin. For $12 per month, Grammarly users can upload their writing and then receive real-time comments from Experts supposedly for the purpose of improving their prose. In addition to Angwin, a well-known journalist who has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and ProPublica, among others, Experts include Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Kara Swisher, and many others.

The complaint alleges that the Expert Review tool works as follows. When a user uploads a text, Grammarly instructs that it is “reading your text” and “finding experts to review your piece.” Once Grammarly identifies relevant experts, it tells the user it is “Applying ideas from” the identified Experts. As an example, it will tell a user it is “Applying ideas from Julia Angwin” and then describe Angwin as an “Investigative journalist, Pulitzer Price finalist, former editor-in-chief at the Markup, author of notable works on digital privacy and accountability.”

Grammarly’s output to the user is to place next to specific portions of the text the name of the expert with a brief comment about how to improve the text, such as “Lead with personal stake” or “Sharpen the opening.” When the user clicks on the comment, a more detailed suggestion is provided, with Grammarly stating the “suggestion is inspired” by the relevant expert. The user can then insert an example of the Expert’s suggestion by clicking on a button.

The complaint alleges that Grammarly has structured the Expert Review tool to make users believe the Experts actually were providing “their perspective, insight, feedback, and comments” on the text, or at the very least were “associated with feedback and comments being provided.” However, Grammarly did not obtain the consent of Angwin or hundreds of other Experts before it launched the product and began selling subscriptions using the Experts’ names and identities.

Grammarly allegedly also uses the Experts’ publicly-available work to create “writing advice that these experts did not give.” It allegedly analyzes the Experts’ work and then draws conclusions about what advice the expert would give to Grammarly’s users. But, as Angwin alleges, the Expert might not in fact agree with that advice, and Grammarly might draw incorrect conclusions about the Expert’s writing. As a result, “[u]sers are then left with the impression that they received writing advice from Ms. Angwin that she had no knowledge of and may disagree with entirely.”

Publicity rights law. The complaint asserts claims under California’s and New York’s Publicity Rights statutes, and California common law. It asserts that both California and New York law have long recognized the right of publicity. It quotes a 1979 California Supreme Court decision, explaining the “right of publicity means in essence that the reaction of the public to name and likeness, which may be fortuitous or which may be managed or planned, endows the name and likeness of the person involved with commercially exploitable opportunities,” Logan v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal. 3d 813, 824 (Cal. 1979), as well as similar New York case law. Angwin alleges that Grammarly, by using the names and identities of the Experts without obtaining their consent, has misappropriated those “commercially exploitable opportunities” of the Experts in violation of California and New York law.

The complaint alleges the Experts have been injured because they have lost “control of the commercial use of their names and identities and the work product that the public associates with them,” and have suffered economic injury because Grammarly does not compensate them for use of their names and identities.

Class allegations. Angwin purports to represent both a nationwide class of Experts and also a subclass of Experts who resided in New York, whose name and likeness have been used for the Expert Review function. The complaint alleges the class has “at least hundreds of members” and identifies several questions of law and fact common to the class members.

Relief requested. Angwin seeks (1) a “declaratory judgment that [Grammarly] has violated the Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights; (2) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief that Grammarly be ordered to comply with California and New York law; (3) certification of the case as a class action, with Angwin as lead plaintiff, and Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC as class counsel; (4) actual, real, and/or statutory damages; and (5) reasonable attorney fees and costs, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent allowable by law.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-02005.

Attorneys: David Benjamin Berman (Peter Romer-Friedman Law PLLC) for Julia Angwin.

Companies: Superhuman Platform, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory PublicityRights CaliforniaNews NewYorkNews TechnologyInternet GCNNews