Superhuman, the company behind Grammarly, is currently entangled in a class action lawsuit concerning its recent AI tool that misappropriated the names of prominent authors and academics for its "Expert Review" editing feature. This tool functioned by offering editing suggestions as if they originated from well-known figures without their consent, leading to significant public outcry and ultimately, the discontinuation of the feature.
The suit, filed in the Southern District of New York, names journalist Julia Angwin as the lead plaintiff. Angwin, the founder of The Markup and an acclaimed investigative journalist, argues that the tool’s usage of her name and reputation, alongside those of many others—including Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson—was unauthorized and harmful. While no specific damages are demanded, the lawsuit claims that the total damages for all affected plaintiffs exceed $5 million.
Angwin’s complaint emphasizes the wrongful appropriation of identities to generate profits for Superhuman, the parent company of Grammarly. She and her attorney believe that existing laws in both New York and California prohibit the commercial exploitation of an individual’s name and likeness without proper permissions.
In light of the backlash and the lawsuit, Superhuman has acted swiftly to disable the "Expert Review" tool. Ailian Gan, the director of product management at Superhuman, acknowledged in a statement that the company misjudged the utility and representation of the tool. "We clearly missed the mark," said Gan, indicating that the feedback received from users and the involved experts led to this decision.
Initially, the AI feature generated responses based on a large language model, intending to provide users with insights from esteemed authors. However, the disclaimers that accompanied the tool clarified that these authors had neither endorsed nor contributed to its development, which many writers viewed as offensive and misleading.
Angwin expressed her shock upon learning about Gmail’s usage of her name. She criticized the quality and relevance of the suggestions attributed to her digital doppelgänger, stating that some advice was not only poor but actively detrimental to clarity and comprehension.
Following the complaints, Superhuman’s CEO acknowledged the valid concerns raised by experts regarding the misrepresentation of their identities, stating that the company takes such feedback seriously as it continues to refine its offerings.
As the lawsuit progresses, Angwin aims not just for restitution but also to cease Superhuman’s exploitation of her name and the identities of other professionals similarly affected. The developments surrounding this lawsuit highlight the ongoing discourse surrounding identity rights in the age of AI and technology.
