Grammarly’s Legal Fine Print Contradicts Its Public Apology Earlier this week, the popular writing assistant Grammarly issued a widespread apology after a privacy policy update triggered user alarm. The company assured everyone it does not and will not sell user data. This message was broadcast across its website and social channels in an effort to quell a building backlash. However, a crucial detail was buried in the legal documents accompanying a recent lawsuit settlement, and it paints a different picture. While Grammarly is not selling data in the traditional sense, it has admitted to sharing user data with third parties for advertising purposes. This admission stems from a class-action lawsuit settled in late 2023. The lawsuit alleged that Grammarly engaged in unauthorized data sharing. In the settlement paperwork, the company states it does not sell personal information as defined by the California Consumer Privacy Act. But in the very next sentence, it acknowledges sharing identifiers like user IDs and device information with advertising partners to facilitate targeted ads. For the crypto community, this discrepancy is not just a minor oversight. It is a glaring red flag about data ownership and transparency. Crypto users routinely handle sensitive information, from wallet addresses to transaction histories discussed in drafts. The idea that metadata from documents containing such information could be shared with an advertising ecosystem is deeply concerning. The core issue is the semantic gap between a public promise and a legal disclosure. Saying “we do not sell your data” feels absolute to the average user. Technically, sharing data for ad targeting might not constitute a “sale” under a specific law, but it still monetizes user information and exposes it to third-party networks. This kind of nuanced data sharing is often where breaches and profiling occur. This situation underscores a critical lesson for anyone in the digital asset space. Do not take privacy assurances at face value. The real terms are always in the privacy policy and legal disclaimers. For a tool as pervasive as Grammarly, which has access to a vast amount of professional and personal text, this lack of forthrightness is significant. Users must be proactive. Assume that any text processed by a free online tool contributes to a data profile. For highly sensitive crypto-related communications, consider using offline tools or software with clearly documented, verifiable zero-data-retention policies. The Grammarly episode is a stark reminder that in the age of data monetization, if the product is free, your attention and your information are likely the actual commodities being traded.
