Journalist Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Against Grammarly in New York Federal Court Over 'Expert Review' Feature

A journalist filed a class action lawsuit against the parent company of Grammarly, alleging that Grammarly "misappropriated the names and identities of hundreds of authors, editors, journalists and writers to earn profits for the company."

Class Action Lawsuit filed against Superhuman Platform Inc.

According to Remio, investigative journalist Julia Angwin filed a class action lawsuit on March 11, 2026 against Superhuman Platform Inc., the parent company of Grammarly. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

It states that Grammarly "targets a specific feature launched in August 2025, known as "expert review." Within the $12 monthly pro subscription, expert review uses large language models (AI) to generate writing feedback while giving credit of that advice to "real, recognizable journalists and writers and subject matter experts" without their consent -- and "used to sell software subscriptions."

In response, Superhuman Platform Inc. CEO Shishir Mehrotra issued a public apology on LinkedIn and disabled the "expert review" feature.

Grammarly Class Action Lawsuit Covers Only Certain Individuals 

To be clear, the Grammarly class action lawsuit only covers individuals whose name and identity was misappropriated for commercial gain. It doesn't not cover those who paid $12 for the pro subscription. The quick filing of the class action lawsuit "put a nail in the coffin" for the expert review feature.

At the heart of the lawsuit, Grammarly required the "experts" whose identities were being misappropriated to email customer support to have their names removed from the AI prompt outputs.

The class action lawsuit seeks over $5 million in damages from Superhuman Platform Inc. (parent company of Grammarly) for the unauthorized commercial exploitation of journalists, authors and writers.

The state of New York has strict commercial protections against the unauthorized use of a person's name, image, or likeness for profit without their agreement.