Grammarly Removes AI Authorship Feature, Faces Class Action Lawsuit

Grammarly has pulled its AI authorship feature and now faces a class action lawsuit over how it used real writers. The writing assistant pulled the tool, which let users style their text to match named journalists and scholars, after months of backlash from authors who said their identities were taken without permission. For anyone who writes with AI, the case draws a sharper line around what tools can claim about voice and identity.

What the Grammarly feature actually did

Grammarly launched an "Authorship" feature, also called "Expert Review" in some coverage, that went well beyond grammar checking. It offered users the option to have their text rewritten in the style of specific, named writers. Journalists, academics, and published authors appeared in the tool's style list without having agreed to it. A user could select a name and Grammarly would reshape their draft to sound like that person.

The feature was first reported by Wired and Platformer in early March 2026. The coverage triggered swift reaction. The Verge and TechCrunch confirmed that the tool singled out identifiable professionals by name, signaling an endorsement or participation that never existed. The Bookseller, which covers the publishing industry, reported that the tool impersonated authors without consent.

The lawsuit and Julia Angwin

Julia Angwin, a journalist and New York Times opinion contributor, is the lead plaintiff in the class action. She wrote an essay titled "Why I'm Suing Grammarly" published in the Times on March 13, explaining how she discovered her name was being used to sell an AI style filter she never approved.

The lawsuit argues that Grammarly violated right of publicity laws, which give individuals control over commercial use of their name, likeness, and recognizable aspects of identity. According to legal analysis published by Lawfare in April, right of publicity doctrine provides a direct path to challenge this kind of AI impersonation without needing new deepfake-specific legislation.

Fast Company, Top Class Actions, and The Tech Buzz all covered the filing in mid-March. The class action aspect means other writers whose identities were scraped into the style list may join the claim.

Grammarly removes the feature

By March 19, Legal Reader reported that Grammarly had removed the AI authorship feature. On July 6, Mashable confirmed the feature is gone and the class action lawsuit is proceeding. Grammarly has not publicly disclosed a settlement or resolution timeline.

The company built its reputation on helping writers improve their own prose. The authorship feature crossed from assistance into appropriation, and the legal response shows that writers are willing to push back when a tool treats their voice as a commodity.

What this means for authors writing with AI

The Grammarly case matters for anyone publishing with AI because it clarifies where tools cross a line that courts are willing to enforce. Three takeaways:

Voice is not a filter. A writing tool can help you revise your own sentences. It cannot take another author's name, style, or reputation and repackage it as a dropdown menu. The lawsuit treats that distinction as legally meaningful.

Consent is not optional. If a platform builds a feature that uses identifiable writers to sell the product, those writers have standing to object. The Grammarly case shows that authors do not need to wait for new AI-specific laws. Existing right of publicity statutes already apply.

Disclosure matters but is not enough. Even if a tool labels its output, using someone's identity without permission to market an AI style remains a separate issue. For authors considering how to disclose their own AI use, the current requirements for Amazon KDP and other stores are covered in our guide on how to publish an AI book on Amazon KDP.

The case does not say AI writing tools are illegal. It says that when a tool borrows a real writer's identity as a feature, that writer gets to say no, and the courts back them up.

PageWriter Studio is built on the opposite approach. The AI generates outlines, drafts, and chapters, and you apply a style profile tuned to your own writing, not someone else's byline. That is the difference between using AI as a drafting partner and treating someone's voice as a preset. If you want to try that workflow on your next book, you can start a free trial and keep your voice where it belongs.