Grammmarly's parent company, Superhuman, faces a class action lawsuit after launching a controversial feature that used AI to simulate editorial feedback from prominent writers and experts without their consent. The feature, titled Expert Review, was available to subscribers paying $144 annually and utilized the names and likenesses of figures such as journalist Julia Angwin, late scientist Carl Sagan, and tech journalist Kara Swisher. Instead of using actual human input, the system generated responses that mimicked the personas of these individuals. Angwin, who has spent her career investigating technology's impact on privacy, filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and hundreds of other experts. She argues that Superhuman violated their privacy and publicity rights by selling an imposter version of their expertise. In a statement, Angwin expressed distress over a tech company commercializing a distorted version of her hard-earned skills. The situation is particularly ironic given Angwin's history of exposing similar privacy issues in the tech industry. Other included critics, such as AI ethicist Timnit Gebru, were also part of the feature. Testing of the feature revealed significant shortcomings in its ability to deliver meaningful feedback. Casey Newton, editor of the tech newsletter Platformer, submitted one of his articles to the tool, which purported to provide critique from a simulated Kara Swisher. The resulting advice was so generic that it questioned the utility of using real experts' names at all. The AI suggested, Could you briefly compare how daily AI users versus AI skeptics articulate risk, creating a through-line readers can follow? Newton shared this output with the actual Kara Swisher, who responded with strong condemnation, calling the company rapacious information and identity thieves and stating, Also, you suck. Following the backlash and legal action, Superhuman CEO Shishir Mehrotra announced via LinkedIn that the company had disabled the Expert Review feature. Mehrotra issued an apology but maintained that the underlying concept of the feature was sound. He suggested that such technology could allow experts to build ubiquitous bonds with users, similar to how Grammarly connects with writers. However, the incident highlighted ethical concerns regarding the unauthorized use of personal likenesses and the potential for AI to misrepresent expert opinion. The lawsuit seeks to hold the company accountable for impersonating professionals without permission, setting a precedent for how AI tools handle identity and consent in commercial products.