Grammarly, the popular writing assistant, recently launched a feature called “Expert Review” that falsely suggests writing feedback is coming from renowned authors, thinkers, and even journalists. The tool, released in August 2025, presents AI-generated suggestions as if they originated from the perspective of figures like Kara Swisher or Timnit Gebru, despite having no actual involvement or permission from these individuals.
How the Feature Works
Expert Review appears as a sidebar within Grammarly’s interface, allowing users to view revisions framed as advice from subject matter experts. Publications like Wired and The Verge have demonstrated this feature will cite writers and journalists at outlets including Bloomberg, The New York Times, and more, with no indication that these people endorsed or contributed to the tool.
The Illusion of Authority
When tested by TechCrunch, the tool suggested adding ethical considerations “like Casey Newton” or “posing the bigger accountability question” as Timnit Gebru might. This highlights a core issue: the feature fabricates authority by name-dropping prominent figures without their consent. Grammarly’s own explanation, as relayed to The Verge by VP of Product Alex Gay, justifies this by claiming the experts are “publicly available and widely cited.”
The Reality Behind the Claims
Grammarly’s user guide clarifies that these references are purely informational and do not imply any affiliation with the experts mentioned. However, this distinction does little to address the misleading impression the feature creates. As historian C.E. Aubin pointed out to Wired, these are not genuine expert reviews because no actual experts are involved in their creation.
The feature is fundamentally deceptive because it leverages the credibility of well-known professionals to enhance Grammarly’s product without providing legitimate expertise. The lack of transparency and implied endorsement raises questions about the company’s marketing tactics and the ethics of AI-driven writing assistance.
