The Grammarly tradeoff: Is better writing worth exposing business data?

Writing tools including Grammarly use data from users to train their AI. Some businesses, especially those making products or software, worry it puts their intellectual property at risk.

Grammarly screenshot

When people use Grammarly, it collects their data to train its machine-learning models.

Screenshot: Grammarly

People using writing assistants at work might love sending polished emails to colleagues or crafting smarter company social media posts. Their company’s IT and legal teams might not love the fact that some of those tools use their content to train their AI.

When people use Grammarly, a popular writing software, they grant the company permission to use the content they write in the tool to help adjust and improve its machine-learning models. Another writing assistant, Bramework, has terms and conditions requiring users to give the company irrevocable, perpetual and worldwide rights to use, reproduce and distribute the content they write when using the system.

Grammarly uses human linguists along with AI tools such as natural-language processing and machine learning to automate suggestions for ways to make writing crisper, more grammatically correct or even more diplomatic. Machine-learning models need data sets on which to train and improve, and Grammarly employs textual data from its users in the training data it uses to improve its products and identify new ways people might use them.

“User inputs such as suggestion, accept or reject rates help us identify adjustments we may need to make in the product,” said Shane Collins, a Grammarly representative. “In some cases, we may store some text to help us improve the product, though we do not store all text transmitted through Grammarly.” Collins noted that the company removes user account data and personally identifiable information from text it uses to train its natural-language processing systems.

But Grammarly also sells an enterprise version of its writing tool that’s used by businesses and their employees inside text editors or even in apps such as Slack. And that data use by Grammarly’s business customers could create intellectual property concerns, said Jumi Kassim, a patent attorney at law firm Patterson Thuente, who also has a software engineering background.

“They are taking copies of anything you’re typing into their system,” Kassim said. For instance, when people use the Grammarly plugin while writing an email, “You’re giving them permission to take a copy of that,” she said.

After this story was published, Grammarly objected to that description, saying that it does not "store the entire content of documents in their original form."

“How much it is a big deal for companies depends on what data they are working with,” said Kassim. For instance, she said that while at a law firm like hers, software would have to go through a vetting process to ensure it does not compromise the security of confidential client information, “I’m sure there are lots of companies where they don’t care if you use Grammarly or not.”

Some tech companies say no

For some companies with employees writing about products or proprietary information, the data use is a red flag.

“We have had some pushback from clients,” said Elissa Ennis, head of Client Success at Enshored, which provides customer service, sales support and content-moderation services. The company offers its clients access to Grammarly to help them maintain brand consistency by setting up a customized Grammarly style guide.

Ennis said that customers such as software makers that are concerned about competition are especially leery of using Grammarly. “That’s only happened, really, I think two times where someone's been a pass on it. They did their due diligence on it. They talked to Grammarly, they talked to our IT about it,” Ennis told Protocol.

Software giant Microsoft reportedly said no to Grammarly too. GeekWire reported in 2019 that the company prohibits employees from using the writing tool. Microsoft declined to comment for this story.

It’s another example of shadow IT, when employees or teams purchase or use software for business purposes that companies should have processes in place to manage. “Any time your business is going to use a new piece of software, there should be someone vetting what software is being used and looking at the terms of service to see: Are they using my user data, and how?” said Kassim.

Intuit’s rigorous assessment

Intuit did just that before using Writer, a Grammarly rival, to help manage text for user interface elements like buttons and alerts content.

"Intuit, like I would imagine many Fortune 500 companies, is super-concerned about security,” said Tina O'Shea, its director of Content Design and Systems. “We had to go through a super-rigorous checking process … The security team had to vet it to make sure nothing was getting out.”

Writer calls itself a Grammarly alternative. On its website, it makes a point of highlighting the fact: “What you write will never make it into our machine learning models.”

Instead of employing user data to train its system, Writer’s CEO May Habib said the company uses a proprietary data set incorporating synthetic data, or information generated for the purpose of training its models.

Grammarly has run up against skepticism from critics who question the tradeoffs of handing over content in exchange for wordsmithing superiority, even when it comes to personal use. Amid the scrutiny, the company has altered its terms and conditions to limit how it employs user data such as text and documents.

Ultimately, said Kassim, businesses might want to consider paying for premium versions of tools that take less data.

“From a risk-management perspective, there are times when you can get away with things that have no cost to the business versus times it makes sense to pay money,” Kassim said. “There’s value in having a reduced risk.”

This story was updated to include additional comment from Grammarly.


Gensler: Bitcoin may be a commodity

The SEC has been vague about crypto. But Gensler said bitcoin is a commodity, “maybe.” It’s the clearest glimpse of his views on digital assets yet.

“Bitcoin — maybe that’s a commodity token. That has a big market value, but that goes over there,” Gensler said, referring to another regulator, the CFTC.

Photoillustration: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Protocol

SEC Chair Gary Gensler has long argued that many cryptocurrencies are subject to regulation as securities.

But he recently clarified that this view wouldn’t apply to the best-known cryptocurrency, bitcoin.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Sponsored Content

Why the digital transformation of industries is creating a more sustainable future

Qualcomm’s chief sustainability officer Angela Baker on how companies can view going “digital” as a way not only toward growth, as laid out in a recent report, but also toward establishing and meeting environmental, social and governance goals.

Three letters dominate business practice at present: ESG, or environmental, social and governance goals. The number of mentions of the environment in financial earnings has doubled in the last five years, according to GlobalData: 600,000 companies mentioned the term in their annual or quarterly results last year.

But meeting those ESG goals can be a challenge — one that businesses can’t and shouldn’t take lightly. Ahead of an exclusive fireside chat at Davos, Angela Baker, chief sustainability officer at Qualcomm, sat down with Protocol to speak about how best to achieve those targets and how Qualcomm thinks about its own sustainability strategy, net zero commitment, other ESG targets and more.

Keep Reading Show less
Chris Stokel-Walker

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of "YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars." His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.


What the economic downturn means for pay packages

The war for talent rages on, but dynamics are shifting back to the employers.

Compensation packages could start to look different as companies reshuffle the balance of cash and equity.

Illustration: Nuthawut Somsuk/Getty Images

The market is turning. Tech stocks are slumping — which is bad news for employees — and even industry powerhouses are slowing hiring and laying people off. Tech talent is still in high demand, but compensation packages could start to look different as companies recruit.

“It’s a little bit like whiplash,” compensation consultant Ashish Raina said of the downturn. Raina, who mainly works with startups that have 200 to 800 employees, previously worked as the director of Talent at Index Ventures and head of Compensation and Talent Analytics at Box. “I do think there’s going to be an interesting reckoning in terms of pay increases going forward, how that pay is delivered.”

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.

How 'Zuck Bucks' saved the 2020 election — and fueled the Big Lie

The true story of how Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s $419 million donation became the 2020 election’s most enduring conspiracy theory.

Mark Zuckerberg is smack in the center of one of the 2020 election’s multitudinous conspiracies.

Illustration: Mike McQuade; Photos: Getty Images

If Mark Zuckerberg could have imagined the worst possible outcome of his decision to insert himself into the 2020 election, it might have looked something like the scene that unfolded inside Mar-a-Lago on a steamy evening in early April.

There in a gilded ballroom-turned-theater, MAGA world icons including Kellyanne Conway, Corey Lewandowski, Hope Hicks and former president Donald Trump himself were gathered for the premiere of “Rigged: The Zuckerberg Funded Plot to Defeat Donald Trump.”

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.


From frenzy to fear: Trading apps grapple with anxious investors

After riding the stock-trading wave last year, trading apps like Robinhood have disenchanted customers and jittery investors.

Retail stock trading is still an attractive business, as shown by the news that crypto exchange FTX is dipping its toes in the market by letting some U.S. customers trade stocks.

Photo: Lam Yik/Bloomberg via Getty Images

For a brief moment, last year’s GameStop craze made buying and selling stocks cool, even exciting, for a new generation of young investors. Now, that frenzy has turned to fear.

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev pointed to “a challenging macro environment” marked by rising prices and interest rates and a slumping market in a call with analysts explaining his company’s lackluster results. The downturn, he said, was something “most of our customers have never experienced in their lifetimes.”

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Latest Stories