Grammarly's Lawsuit Is About Identity, Not Just Data

Most AI training lawsuits argue over copyright — did you use my text without permission? The class action filed against Grammarly raises a harder question: did you use me?

The lawsuit alleges Grammarly took real journalists’ names and professional identities to train and market AI writing tools, presenting AI-generated advice as if it carried those individuals’ authority. That’s a different kind of harm. You can debate fair use of published text. It’s harder to argue you have any right to attach someone’s professional reputation to your product without asking.

This distinction matters well beyond journalism. Consultants, analysts, researchers, subject matter experts — anyone whose career is built on what their name means to clients and colleagues — should pay attention. If your professional identity has market value, that value is presumably yours to license or withhold. The Grammarly case tests whether that assumption holds when an AI company decides your reputation is useful marketing material.

Working out where AI training ends and identity misappropriation begins is genuinely unsettled territory. Copyright law at least has decades of precedent. The right of publicity — the legal concept most relevant here — varies wildly by jurisdiction and was never designed with AI in mind.

The outcome will tell us something about whether “I didn’t use your words, just your name” is a meaningful defense.