Grammarly’s ‘expert review’ is just missing the actual experts

Source: TechCrunch

A recently added feature in Grammarly claims to improve users’ writing with help from the world’s great writers and thinkers — and some tech journalists, too.

Launch and Feature Overview

The feature, Expert Review, launched in August 2025 as part of a broader set of AI‑powered tools. It appears in the sidebar of Grammarly’s main writing assistant, allowing users to request revision suggestions “from the perspective” of subject‑matter experts.

• Announcement: Business Wire – Grammarly Launches Specialized AI Agents and Writing Surface for Students and Professionals
• Overview of the AI feature set: TechCrunch – Grammarly gets a design overhaul, multiple AI features

Media Coverage and Criticism

• Wired noted that Grammarly frames the feedback as if it were coming from well‑known authors, living or dead.
  Read the article

• The Verge reported that the suggestions can appear to come from tech journalists at The Verge, Wired, Bloomberg, The New York Times, and other publications.
  Read the article

When testing the feature with an early draft of this post, the suggestions referenced figures such as Casey Newton, Kara Swisher, and Timnit Gebru, but not TechCrunch. The result was disappointing, highlighting an inconsistency in the claimed expert coverage.

Grammarly’s Response

Alex Gay, vice president of product and corporate marketing at Grammarly’s parent company Superhuman, told The Verge that the experts are mentioned “because their published works are publicly available and widely cited.”

Grammarly’s user guide also clarifies the nature of the feature:

“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.”
— Grammarly Expert Review User Guide

Conclusion

Historian C.E. Aubin, quoted in Wired, summed up the criticism: “These are not expert reviews, because there are no ‘experts’ involved in producing them.” The feature’s framing raises questions about the authenticity of the “expert review” label and the ethical implications of using well‑known names without explicit permission.