Writing software removes AI feature after lawsuit over expert impersonation claims.
A popular writing software company, Grammarly, has removed a new AI feature (aka, artificial intelligence) after facing legal action and public criticism over how the tool represented real people. The decision followed a lawsuit claiming the feature copied the identities and writing styles of journalists and authors without permission, raising new concerns about how artificial intelligence systems use human work and reputation.
Grammarly introduced the feature as part of a paid upgrade designed to help users improve their writing. The tool, called “Expert Review,” offered edits that were presented as coming from well-known writers and subject specialists. According to company descriptions, the system analyzed a user’s text and generated feedback as if it were written from the perspective of recognized experts. The feature promised professional-level suggestions shaped by the knowledge and experience associated with those individuals.
However, several writers and journalists said they were never asked for approval before their names and identities were used. Among them was investigative journalist Julia Angwin, who filed a lawsuit claiming the company violated privacy and publicity rights by using real people’s reputations to sell a subscription service. The complaint argued that the tool created imitation versions of professionals whose careers were built over many years, allowing the company to profit from their identities without consent.
Angwin publicly expressed frustration, stating that decades of professional work had been turned into what she described as an unauthorized digital copy of her expertise. The lawsuit also suggested that many other writers, editors, and public figures may have been included in the system without their knowledge. The feature reportedly referenced journalists from major publications and well-known authors, both living and deceased.
Company representatives explained that the experts were included because their published work was widely available and frequently cited. Still, critics argued that public availability does not equal permission for commercial impersonation. The dispute quickly sparked debate about the limits of artificial intelligence and whether training data or stylistic imitation crosses ethical or legal boundaries.
Following growing backlash, company leadership announced that the feature would be shut down while the approach is reconsidered. The chief executive acknowledged that concerns raised by writers and experts were valid and said feedback from critics would influence future product decisions. The company also apologized and stated that any redesigned version would give individuals more control over whether their identities could be represented. Plans were announced to allow experts to opt out of similar tools moving forward.
The controversy arrives at a time when artificial intelligence writing systems are rapidly changing how people create and edit text. Large language models now offer editing and rewriting abilities that compete directly with traditional writing assistants. Some technology observers believe older grammar-focused platforms are under pressure to evolve as newer AI systems provide broader capabilities, including drafting, research support, and style adaptation.
Industry analysts have noted that writing software companies are expanding into wider productivity tools in response to this shift. Acquisitions of collaboration and workflow platforms signal attempts to remain competitive as artificial intelligence reshapes digital work. The removal of the impersonation feature highlights the risks companies face when innovation moves faster than legal and ethical standards.
The situation also reflects growing tension between technological progress and personal ownership of creative identity. Writers build recognizable voices over years of practice, and many argue that these voices should not be replicated without clear agreement. As artificial intelligence becomes more advanced, questions about authorship, consent, and compensation are likely to appear more often in courts and public discussions.
Legal experts expect similar disputes to continue as companies test this new AI feature and others that blur the line between inspiration and imitation. The outcome of these cases may help define how artificial intelligence tools can reference or mimic human expertise in the future. For now, the removal of the feature shows that public response and legal pressure can quickly reshape how technology companies deploy new AI systems.
The episode serves as a reminder that while artificial intelligence can expand creative tools, it also forces society to reconsider long-standing ideas about ownership, identity, and professional recognition in the digital age.
Sources:
Grammarly drops AI impersonation tool after class action lawsuit
Join the conversation!