Grammarly has introduced a new AI-powered feature called 'Expert Review,' launched in August 2025 as part of its broader suite of writing assistant tools. This feature, appearing in the sidebar, purports to enhance users' writing by offering revision suggestions 'from the perspective' of various subject matter experts and renowned thinkers, aiming to improve overall composition and style.

However, the implementation of this feature has drawn significant attention due to its presentation. Publications like Wired and The Verge have observed that Grammarly frames this feedback as if it originates from well-known authors, both living and deceased, and even prominent tech journalists from respected outlets such as The Verge, Wired, Bloomberg, and The New York Times. A TechCrunch writer, upon testing the feature, notably received advice attributed to figures like Casey Newton, Kara Swisher, and Timnit Gebru, rather than their own colleagues, which raised questions about the breadth and relevance of the experts referenced.

A central concern has emerged regarding the perceived involvement of these named individuals. It is explicitly noted that none of the referenced figures appear to be actively involved in the 'Expert Review' feature or to have granted Grammarly explicit permission to use their names in this context, leading to ethical questions about intellectual property and endorsement.

Grammarly's parent company, Superhuman, through its Vice President of Product and Corporate Marketing, Alex Gay, addressed this by stating that experts are mentioned because 'their published works are publicly available and widely cited.' Furthermore, Grammarly's user guide for the feature includes a disclaimer clarifying that '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,' attempting to provide transparency to users.

Despite Grammarly's explanations and disclaimers, the fundamental nature of the feature is being critically questioned. Historian C.E. Aubin, as reported by Wired, critically observed, 'These are not expert reviews, because there are no ‘experts’ involved in producing them,' thereby challenging the very premise, authenticity, and nomenclature of the 'Expert Review' feature in the absence of direct expert contribution.