Angwin v. Superhuman Platform, Inc.
Issue
Whether Superhuman Platform, Inc.'s use of real journalists' and authors' names and AI-generated writing feedback attributed to those individuals in its commercial "Expert Review" tool, without their consent, constitutes actionable misappropriation of identity under California's common law right of publicity, California Civil Code § 3344, New York Civil Rights Law § 50, and the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment.
What Happened
Plaintiff Julia Angwin, an investigative journalist, filed a class action complaint in the S.D.N.Y. on March 11, 2026, alleging that Grammarly's parent company, Superhuman Platform, Inc., launched a paid feature in August 2025 called "Expert Review" that displayed named journalists, authors, and public figures—including Angwin, Stephen King, and Neil deGrasse Tyson—as purported sources of AI-generated writing suggestions, without ever seeking or obtaining their consent. Angwin alleges she learned of the appropriation not from Grammarly but from a third-party news report, and that users were presented with comments styled as being "inspired by" or attributed to her despite her having no knowledge of or role in generating that advice. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons whose names were used in Expert Review without consent, and a New York subclass, with class certification sought under Rule 23(b)(3).
Why It Matters
This complaint directly tests whether an AI product developer incurs right-of-publicity liability when it uses real individuals' names and scraped public work to generate and commercially market AI-simulated advice attributed to those individuals—a fact pattern that existing right-of-publicity doctrine has not clearly addressed in the AI context. The outcome could establish whether consent requirements under California Civil Code § 3344 and New York Civil Rights Law § 50 apply to AI-generated persona emulation used as a commercial feature, potentially setting a significant precedent for how AI companies may lawfully incorporate real people's identities into monetized products.
How accurate was this summary?