In the United States, writing assistant Grammarly has recently faced severe backlash over an AI feature that impersonated renowned authors and journalists without their consent. The controversial ‘Expert Review’ function, which was briefly available to users for $12 a month, allowed Grammarly to generate text revisions that appeared to be authored by these experts. Following a wave of criticism, Julia Angwin, an investigative journalist whose persona was utilized in this feature, filed a class-action lawsuit against Grammarly and its parent company Superhuman for violating privacy and publicity rights. The lawsuit alleges that the companies profited from the unauthorized use of the identities of numerous professionals in the literary field. Experts, including Julia Angwin, expressed distress over the misrepresentation of their voices. Angwin, who has an extensive background in journalism, pointed out that the misuse of her name directly undermines her long-earned credibility and professional identity. Many writers, academics, and authors criticized the practice as unethical, arguing it jeopardizes their reputations and devalues their expert opinions. In response to the mounting criticism, Shishir Mehrotra, the CEO of Superhuman, publicly acknowledged the company’s shortcomings in this endeavor and stated that they are committed to reevaluating their approach towards using expert advice in future product features. Furthermore, research indicates that the AI persona impersonation features in writing assistants are becoming increasingly controversial, especially in light of emerging technologies that can analyze and replicate writing styles. When the featured tool was announced, it drew acclaim for providing personalized feedback; however, it became evident that the foundational principle—the consent of the experts whose personas were being utilized—was severely lacking. Given the rising prominence of AI technologies in creative industries, this legal action raises questions about the ethical implications surrounding automated writing tools that blur the lines between human authorship and machine-generated content. As the legal proceedings unfold, experts and industry commentators will be closely watching to assess how this case may reshuffle the landscape of AI applications in writing tools. The resulting judgment could set significant precedents affecting how companies handle the representation and use of intellectual property and personal identities in AI-driven platforms. Consequently, Grammarly’s decision to retract the contested feature is a testament to the importance of transparency and the necessity of obtaining proper consent from individuals when their identities are used for profit. The ongoing dialogue regarding AI ethical practices may also encourage broader conversations around user rights and representation in digital environments.