## Grammarly's New AI Feature Borrows Famous Names — Without Permission

Grammarly recently rolled out a feature called **Expert Review**, promising users writing feedback inspired by some of the world's most respected authors, intellectuals, and journalists. Sounds impressive — until you dig a little deeper.

Launched in August 2025 as part of a broader wave of AI-powered upgrades, Expert Review appears as a sidebar tool within Grammarly's writing assistant. It offers revision suggestions framed as coming "from the perspective" of notable subject matter experts, giving the impression that a real authority is weighing in on your prose.

## Famous Names, Zero Involvement

As outlets like *Wired* and *The Verge* have pointed out, Grammarly presents this feedback as though it originates from well-known writers — living or deceased. Even more surprisingly, the feature reportedly invokes the names of active tech journalists working at major publications including *The Verge*, *Wired*, *Bloomberg*, and *The New York Times*.

None of these individuals appear to have been consulted, compensated, or asked for permission. When *The Verge* reached out for comment, Alex Gay, Vice President of Product and Corporate Marketing at Grammarly's parent company Superhuman, explained that these figures are referenced simply because their published work is "publicly available and widely cited."

Grammarly's own user documentation attempts to address the obvious concern, stating: *"References to experts in Expert Review are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any affiliation with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities."*

## What Makes a Review 'Expert' If No Experts Are Involved?

That disclaimer might technically cover Grammarly's bases, but it opens up a much bigger question: if no real expert is actually reviewing your writing, in what meaningful sense is this an "expert review" at all?

Historian C.E. Aubin put it bluntly when speaking to *Wired*: **"These are not expert reviews, because there are no 'experts' involved in producing them."**

The feature appears to use AI models trained on publicly available writing to generate feedback that stylistically mimics how a given expert might respond — but that's a far cry from genuine human insight or editorial guidance.

## A Clever Idea With a Credibility Problem

On the surface, the concept behind Expert Review is genuinely interesting. The idea of receiving writing feedback tailored to the style and standards of a respected author or journalist has real appeal — especially for users looking to sharpen their craft.

But the execution raises serious ethical questions. Using someone's name and professional reputation to market an AI feature — without their knowledge — blurs an important line. It risks misleading users into believing they're receiving a quality of feedback that simply isn't there, while simultaneously trading on the credibility of real people who never agreed to participate.

## The Bottom Line

Grammarly's Expert Review feature is a prime example of how AI-powered tools can over-promise through clever branding. Wrapping algorithmic suggestions in the names of respected thinkers and writers may make the product feel more authoritative — but without genuine expert involvement, the "expert" label is little more than marketing gloss.

For users seeking genuine writing improvement, it's worth understanding exactly what these tools are — and what they aren't.

Grammarly's Expert Review feature uses famous names to offer AI writing tips — but none of those experts were consulted or gave permission.

Grammarly Expert Review: No Real Experts Involved

large_brain-brain.jpg

Technology

Grammarly's 'Expert Review' Feature Has One Major Problem: No Actual Experts