Grammarly recently introduced a feature labeled “Expert Review,” promising users feedback from world-renowned writers, thinkers, and journalists. However, the tool functions as an AI simulation rather than a platform involving genuine human experts, raising significant questions about transparency and authorship.
The Illusion of Expert Feedback
Launched in August 2025 as part of an expansive suite of AI-powered writing tools, Grammarly’s Expert Review appears in the sidebar of its writing assistant. It claims to offer revision suggestions from the perspective of subject matter experts. As reported by Wired, the service mimics the feedback styles of famous authors—both living and deceased—and prominent tech journalists from outlets like The Verge, Bloomberg, and The New York Times.
No Real Involvement or Permission
Despite the branding, these figures have no direct involvement in the product. They have not reviewed the content, nor did they grant permission for their names or personas to be used. Alex Gay, vice president of product at Grammarly, confirmed to The Verge that these names are utilized simply because their published works are publicly available and frequently cited by AI models.
Grammarly’s official user guide includes a disclaimer stating that references to these experts are for “informational purposes only” and do not imply any actual affiliation or endorsement. Yet, this has done little to mitigate criticism regarding the feature’s marketing.
Is It Really an Expert Review?
The core of the controversy lies in the nomenclature. By branding the feature as an “Expert Review,” the company implies a level of human authority that does not exist. Historian C.E. Aubin summarized the issue succinctly, noting that the feature fails to deliver on its premise because there are no actual experts involved in the generation of the feedback.
Users testing the tool report generic AI prompts attributed to specific journalists—suggesting they “leverage anecdotes” or “pose accountability questions”—which serves more as a stylistic mimicry than a professional editorial review.