Grammarly disabled the AI feature "in the style of famous authors" after criticism and a class-action lawsuit

Grammarly has disabled the controversial Expert Review feature, which generated edits in the style of famous writers and scientists. The decision was made following sharp criticism and amid a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit over the use of real names without consent.

How the feature worked

The Expert Review function offered users comments and editorial remarks as if written in the manner of a specific author or researcher. Instead of neutral text checking, the service imitated the tone and approach of recognizable public figures, transforming ordinary editing into a stylized consultation. This became the main point of conflict: the product not only helped improve formulations, but created the impression that the advice came from real intellectual figures.

These reference points included authors and scientists with an established public voice. From a marketing perspective, this looked effective, but legally and ethically it proved far more dangerous, because the platform linked AI-generated content to specific people without showing that they participated in the product at all or approved of such a format. For users, this could easily look like personal expertise rather than styling compiled by a model from open speech patterns.

• Recommendations in the style of Stephen King
• Comments inspired by Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Tips referencing Carl Sagan
• A format that creates the impression of "expert review"

Why it went to court

The complaint against Grammarly hinges not on the use of generative AI itself, but on how the feature was packaged. Plaintiffs argue that the company used real names and recognizable reputation without permission, and thus may have violated rights to name, image, and commercial identity. When a service sells subscriptions while promising edits inspired by specific famous people, it starts to look not like impersonal automation, but like monetizing someone else's fame.

Against this backdrop, the class action lawsuit looks like a logical continuation of public reaction. The wave of discontent around AI services increasingly arises where companies take human style, voice, or face and turn them into a product without direct consent. The Expert Review story hits exactly this nerve: users are offered a convenient feature, but the price of convenience is a blurred line between learning from texts and commercial appropriation of personality.

What disabling changes

Disabling Expert Review is not just a quick rollback of one failed feature. For Grammarly, it's a signal that the market is no longer ready to uncritically accept AI tools that masquerade as live experts. Especially when it comes to a writing product, where trust in authorship, tone, and editorial intervention is directly linked to who gives the advice and on what basis in each case.

Companies will likely need to be more careful in how they formulate such modes: saying not "as a famous author would say," but "in such-and-such a genre" or "with such-and-such a level of rigor." The difference seems cosmetic, but legally it's enormous. The more precisely a product ties model output to a specific person, the higher the risk of not just social media criticism, but an actual legal dispute with costly consequences for business and brand.

What it means

For the AI market, this is yet another marker: styling after real people stops being an innocent feature and becomes a zone of direct legal risk. Users want convenient writing tools, but companies will have to clearly separate model assistance from others' personalities, names, and reputations. After the Grammarly story, any editorial AI service will now be more careful not only in choosing models and features, but also in formulations on landing pages, in pricing tiers, and within the interface.