Business
Commentary: Why an AI firm known for fighting plagiarism has real authors in a fury
The online service Grammarly originated in 2009 as a suite of tools to help ferret out plagiarism in schoolwork or help students hone their grammar and spelling. Eventually it incorporated artificial intelligence bots as sources of its writing assistance.
In August 2025, however, the firm stepped way over the line of what is — or should be — permissible as an AI-generated service.
This was its “expert review” service, available to those willing to fork over up to $30 a month. The pitch was that subscribers could get their writing samples reviewed by established writers, including some household names as Stephen King and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and receive feedback from them about how to improve their prose.
This is an area I cover and there have been a lot of lows. But I still feel like this is a new low.
— Julia Angwin, technology journalist and plaintiff in a lawsuit against Grammarly
A few problems have surfaced about this.
First, it appears that many, if not all, the cited “experts” haven’t granted Grammarly permission to use their names or work in connection with this service. Second, none of them actually reviewed the submitted writing samples — the samples were screened by AI bots, which generated the suggestions based on the authors’ published works.
Third, Grammarly didn’t make the truth clear to its users — the suggestions seemed on first impression to come directly from the cited “experts”; it was only when a user clicked through for more detail that Grammarly disclosed that its suggestions were “inspired” by the experts’ published works.
Last week, Grammarly suspended the “expert review” function. That happened the same day that Julia Angwin, a veteran technology and investigative journalist who has worked at the Wall Street Journal and Propublica, filed a federal class-action lawsuit alleging that Grammarly had in effect stolen the real authors’ identities and attributed to them advice that the authors might disagree with, or that might even undermine the authors’ reputations for sound writing.
This isn’t the first time that someone has tried to use AI as a shortcut, with parlous consequences. Over the last couple of years, AI-generated material has appeared in legal briefs and medical diagnoses. Not a few news organizations have been caught publishing AI-generated articles without adequately disclosing that they weren’t written by humans.
Often, the shortcuts have been exposed because the AI bot outputs were riddled with errors — citations to nonexistent legal precedents, proposed medical treatments that were actually life-threatening, factual mistakes that even novice human journalists would know to avoid.
“Expert review” appeared at a time when many authors and artists are taking AI companies to court for allegedly violating copyright law by “training” their bots on published work without acknowledgment or payment.
Numerous lawsuits are making their way through the courts, although the judiciary hasn’t settled on a single conclusion about where the line stands distinguishing “fair use” from copyright infringement.
Yet one doesn’t need an AI bot to explain why Grammarly’s stunt has to rank among the sleaziest misuses of AI technology yet to appear.
San Francisco-based Grammarly didn’t make things any better with a mea culpa posted on LinkedIn by its chief executive, Shishir Mehrotra. Grammarly’s AI agent, he wrote, “was designed to help users discover influential perspectives and scholarship relevant to their work, while also providing meaningful ways for experts to build deeper relationships with their fans.”
In other words, he asserted that “expert review” was designed as a boon not only for Grammarly’s users, but for the experts whose names and works had been exploited for the firm’s profit and without their say-so. He stated that Grammarly will “reimagine” its service to give the experts “real control over how they want to be represented — or not represented at all.”
In an email, Mehrotra responded to my request for comments by acknowledging that “we believe this feature missed the mark on what both experts and users expect out of us.” He added, however, that Grammarly considers the claims in Angwin’s lawsuit to be “without merit and will strongly defend against them.”
Grammarly hasn’t been shy about pushing AI-powered services to users. In November, it changed its corporate name to Superhuman, reflecting what it called its “mission … to unlock the superhuman potential in everyone.”
By then, “expert review” already had been launched. From the outset, the company was a little vague about what the service actually entailed. According to the web page originally posted to pitch the service (the page has since been removed but survives in a web archive), users could improve their writing by “drawing on insights from subject-matter experts and trusted publications.”
Users were instructed to upload their document to the system. The bot then “cross-referenced your writing with relevant experts” and offered “specific … expert-informed feedback.” Users could then choose from a list of a few such experts, each offering a couple of lines of feedback.
Buried in the pitch were subtle disclaimers.
Grammarly slipped a warning onto its web page noting that its feedback was merely “inspired by real experts” and a further notification that its references to “experts” were “for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals.”
The roster of experts was impressive indeed. They included novelist King, astrophysicist Tyson and numerous book and magazine writers of varied eminence. I couldn’t reach King, and Tyson didn’t respond to my request for comment, but some other writers have made their reactions known via other routes.
The tech journalist Kara Swisher, for instance, answered a query from a fellow journalist by labeling the Grammarly folks “rapacious information and identity thieves.”
It might have become obvious to some users that the likelihood was remote that their work was being personally vetted by the cited experts. I might have asked the respected grammarian William Strunk Jr., author of that indispensable primer “The Elements of Style,” what he thought about having been offered up by Grammarly as an expert writing coach, except that he died in 1946. Other deceased writers also have appeared on the roster, such as astronomer Carl Sagan (d. 1996).
“Expert review” coasted under the radar for months, until a few tech journalists caught its scent. The first may have been Miles Klee of Wired, whose report appeared on March 3. Within days, similar reports appeared on The Verge and Defector.
It was a post by Casey Newton of Platformer, which listed several of Grammarly’s “experts,” that alerted Angwin that the company was exploiting her name and work. “They were attempting to take my livelihood and automate it,” she told me. “They were literally selling a service that claims that Julia Angwin will edit your piece. Obviously, that’s a direct threat to me and my ability to earn a living.”
Moreover, Angwin says, the edits that Grammarly proposed under her name to a user were “terrible — so they weren’t just stealing my livelihood but ruining my reputation.”
In its initial response to the burgeoning controversy, Grammarly offered to allow writers to opt out of “expert review” by sending the company an email. The problem there is that the “experts” have no way of knowing that there’s anything to opt out from, since Grammarly hasn’t published a comprehensive roster.
As the author of eight books and years of newspaper columns, I was interested to know if my own name or works were offered. Grammarly told me only that its “data on experts was sourced from third-party LLMs [that is, AI bots]. … Experts were surfaced based on their expertise with the topic.” It added that it “won’t be providing additional comment at this time.”
The extent of Superhuman’s legal exposure for this program is hard to gauge. Angwin’s lawsuit, which seeks to empower a class of authors whose names were used by the company without their consent, cites California and New York laws barring the use of anyone’s name or likeness for commercial purposes without their consent.
As for how many people have been affected, Angwin’s attorney, Peter Romer-Friedman, told me that obtaining the full roster would be his first task under discovery if the case heads to trial. (Superhuman hasn’t yet responded to the lawsuit in court.) But he says more than 100 writers have reached out to say they want to be part of the case since it was filed, and speculates that the total number could be in the thousands.
“This is an area I cover,” Angwin says, “and there have been a lot of lows. But I still feel like this is a new low.”
Business
Sony Pictures invests $100 million in virtual reality venue Cosm
Sony Pictures will invest $100 million and take a minority stake in virtual reality venue operator Cosm, as the studio continues to build a business in communal experiences.
As part of the investment, Sony Pictures Chief Executive Ravi Ahuja will also join Cosm’s board of directors, the studio said Wednesday. The size of Sony’s minority stake was not disclosed.
The El Segundo-based Cosm currently operates three venues — one at Hollywood Park in Inglewood, and the others in Dallas and Atlanta. The company plans to open additional venues in Detroit and Cleveland.
Cosm bills itself as a “shared reality venue,” and its facilities center around a massive, wraparound screen that is intended to envelop viewers with additional digital effects. The company has largely focused on sports, though it has also shown Cirque du Soleil shows and done several collaborations with Warner Bros., including recent screenings of 2001’s “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” in honor of the film’s 25th anniversary.
“Cosm sits at the intersection of several trends shaping the future of entertainment,” Ahuja said in a statement. “We’ve followed Cosm since before launch and have been impressed with the quality of the experience and the enthusiasm it’s generating with audiences.”
The investment is Sony’s latest venture into experiential entertainment. In 2024, the Culver City-based studio acquired dine-in theater chain Alamo Drafthouse Cinema.
Business
Los Angeles tries again to phase out urban oil production
The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday unanimously advanced an ordinance to halt new oil and gas drilling and phase out all existing production over the next 20 years. L.A. is home to more than 2,000 active oil wells.
The measure revives a similar ban passed in 2022, which was struck down by a judge following legal challenges from the oil and gas industry.
It must pass a second vote before final adoption later this summer, and would make L.A. the largest city in the United States to phase out existing oil wells.
“Today, Los Angeles is making a decision that aligns with our need to turn the page on urban oil drilling,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said during Tuesday’s council meeting. “The absence of an enforceable oil ordinance has had real consequences for our communities.”
The ban in 2022 was seen as a historic move for a region built on the petroleum industry.
But in 2024, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge invalidated the law, ruling that the state, not the city, has jurisdiction over petroleum production. The legal challenge was brought by oil companies including Warren Resources, which operates a large oil field in Wilmington. Much of the field is beneath the city of Long Beach, but it also extends under Los Angeles.
Shortly after that, state legislators advanced Assembly Bill 3233, which reaffirmed city and county authority to regulate oil and gas activity. It was largely seen as the missing piece that made the original ordinance vulnerable.
“It’s now unequivocal that cities have the authority to regulate, limit and prohibit oil and gas operations within our jurisdiction,” Yaroslavsky said.
The new ordinance, written by the Department of City Planning, prohibits new oil and gas extraction, including drilling, redrilling or deepening existing oil wells for the purposes of production. It also designates all existing and active idle wells as “nonconforming uses,” meaning they may only operate during the phaseout period and are no longer compliant with current zoning.
Warren Resources, which led the lawsuit against the previous ban, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company previously argued that the 2022 ban was rushed and would lead to more oil imports to the area, causing increased emissions from tankers and trucks and other environmental consequences.
Many wells in the city operate near schools, homes and parks. Most are concentrated in low-income areas and communities of color, such as Wilmington and the harbor district, West L.A. and South L.A., where residents have long reported respiratory issues, headaches, throat irritation and other health problems. Studies have found oil wells can emit carcinogens and are linked to adverse health effects.
“This ordinance is such an important step toward giving every frontline community in Los Angeles access to clean air,” Silvia Esparza, a South L.A. resident and member of environmental justice group Stand-L.A., said in a news conference ahead of Tuesday’s vote.
Ashley Hernandez, a Wilmington resident and organizer with the nonprofit Communities for a Better Environment, said bloody noses and noxious fumes were a regular part of life in the neighborhood growing up.
She noted that in addition to oil drilling, L.A. residents continue to face other environmental hazards, such as the recent oil pipeline rupture that sent crude into the L.A. River or the ongoing cold storage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights that is spewing toxic smoke.
“I’m here to remind L.A. city and these toxic neighbors that Wilmington residents are more important than any ‘black gold’ under their homes,” Hernandez said. “We need our city to protect our families now and to stop the oil industry’s reign of power in our city. A passage of the oil phaseout ordinance today gives the city a chance to correct this wrong.”
Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.
Business
SpaceX stock returns to Earth after record IPO
Shares in Elon Musk’s rocket company SpaceX halted their three-day slide that had erased roughly $600 billion off its market value.
SpaceX shares closed at $156.11 with a nearly 1% gain on Tuesday, a slight recovery from a 16% fall on Monday.
That loss dropped the stock below $160.95, where it ended the day June 12 after a 19% surge during its record initial public offering. The IPO gave it a market cap of $2.2 trillion, making SpaceX one of the world’s most valuable public companies.
It also turned Musk into the world’s first trillionaire, a status he retains despite the sell-off.
The downturn probably reflects investor unease over the company’s spending plans and potential debt load, analysts say.
SpaceX raised a total of $86 billion after underwriters exercised their right to sell additional shares, on top of the $75 billion initially raised. It was the largest IPO in history.
A little more than half a billion shares were distributed to institutional and retail investors at a price of $135, with the stock opening at $150 as some holders immediately flipped shares for a profit.
Shares rose as high as $176.52 during the IPO before settling at the $160.95 price. In the weeks since, shares reached a high of $225.64, meaning that some investors lost money or are underwater with paper losses.
Since the IPO, SpaceX has dropped some big bucks.
It announced last week that it was acquiring AI coding startup Cursor for $60 billion in a deal expected to close in the third quarter. The San Francisco company, founded in 2022, enables engineers to instruct software in English to run coding tasks autonomously.
It also sold $25 billion in bonds on Tuesday , unusual for a company that just went public, much less for one that just raised a record sum.
The IPO surpassed the 2019 offering by Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil giant, which raised $29.4 billion, the prior record holder.
S&P Global issued a report last week that assigned SpaceX a “BBB” credit rating, the lowest possible rating to qualify as an investment grade credit risk. It noted the company will have “elevated capital expenditure” through 2029.
SpaceX rivals OpenAi and Anthropic filed this month for initial public offerings that, while not expected to be as large as Musk’s company, will be large in their own right.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, who has been bullish on SpaceX stock, said the market is digesting “massive debt and equity raises from Big Tech players” in the coming years.
“This is part of an industry wave of debt offerings on Wall Street, like Alphabet and SpaceX among others,” he wrote in an email.
With the stock already giving up gains since the IPO, it will be further tested when tranches of locked-up shares held by current and former employees are released.
At least 20% of the shares will be released after second-quarter results are disclosed sometime in the coming months, with all the lockups expiring in December.
SpaceX, based in Texas, is the leading launch services company in the world, with its Falcon 9 rocket accounting last year for the vast majority of satellites sent into space.
It is also the leading satellite-based broadband provider with its Starlink service. But the extraordinary interest in the IPO was driven by Musk’s plans to make the company an AI leader — including plans to launch orbiting satellite data centers powered by the sun that crunch AI data.
He merged his xAI artificial intelligence company into SpaceX this year, with the combined entity recently announcing it was leasing computer power to rivals Anthropic and Google at two terrestrial data centers it has constructed.
Musk moved the company’s headquarters from Hawthorne to Texas in 2024, but it retains large operations in the South Bay city and blasts off regularly from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County.
Investment research firm Morningstar placed a $780-billion valuation on SpaceX, focusing on its core rocket and Starlink broadband satellite businesses. It suggested investors wait a few months for the stock to settle before buying in.
“I think the day-to-day stock price movements are usually based on market sentiment,” said report co-author Nicolas Owens, an equity analyst at Morningstar. “So I was not surprised when it went way up right after the IPO — and I’m not surprised it [came down]. Not much has really changed in the fundamentals.”
Mike Alves, founder of Pasadena’s Vida Vision Fund, has a stake in SpaceX that accounts for 46% of his AI and robotics fund.
He said he was not perturbed by the stock drop, noting that Facebook fell under $18 a share just months after its May 2012 IPO closed at $38 a share. It has since risen more than 1,000% above its offering price.
“The volatility doesn’t really matter because you’re going to multiply your best investment many times, so I’m not so worried about it,” he said, adding that investors seeking shares could now “scoop them up at a good deal.”
-
Minneapolis, MN44 seconds ago$25 fine for St. Paul woman who assaulted agents at Minneapolis restaurant bust
-
Indianapolis, IN6 minutes agoMan swims out to pickup stuck in White River, prompts emergency rescue
-
Pittsburg, PA13 minutes agoCaps Go Big on Trade Market, Light the Way for Penguins Rebuild
-
Augusta, GA16 minutes agoFinding Solutions: Augusta Training Shop celebrates inclusion, community at ‘Red, White, and Create’
-
Washington, D.C21 minutes agoTrump kicks off America’s 250th celebration with campaign-style rally
-
Cleveland, OH28 minutes ago2 people killed in multi-vehicle crash on SR-176 crash in Cleveland
-
Austin, TX30 minutes agoTexas insurance costs surge 79% in six years as lawmakers question AI impact on rates
-
Alabama36 minutes agoTwo Alabama laws target Mobile blight by speeding sales and giving neighbors first bid