Grammarly AI Feature Uses Expert Names Without Permission

Grammarly has introduced a new AI-powered feature called “Expert Review,” designed to offer writing suggestions based on the perspectives of renowned thinkers and authors. However, the tool is facing scrutiny for simulating feedback from prominent figures and journalists who have no actual connection to the platform.

Launched in August 2025 as part of a suite of new AI-powered writing tools, the feature appears in the Grammarly sidebar. Users can select specific personas to review their drafts, with the AI providing advice framed as if it were coming from well-known individuals—including deceased authors and active reporters from outlets such as The New York Times, Bloomberg, Wired, and The Verge.

Simulated Expertise Without Authorization

The implementation has raised significant questions regarding the definition of “expert” feedback. Reports indicate that the AI generates advice by mimicking the styles of these public figures, despite them having no involvement in the product’s development or providing permission for their names and styles to be used.

Alex Gay, vice president of product and corporate marketing at Grammarly, addressed the controversy by explaining to The Verge that these personas were selected because their published work is publicly available and frequently cited.

Grammarly’s official user guide clarifies the nature of the tool, stating:

• References to experts in Expert Review are for informational purposes only.
• The feature does not indicate any formal affiliation with Grammarly.
• The individuals or entities mentioned have not endorsed the platform.

The Debate Over AI Authenticity

Critics argue that the branding of the feature is misleading. As historian C.E. Aubin stated to Wired, the tool cannot truly be classified as an “expert review” because no actual experts are involved in the generation of the critiques.

The experience remains purely algorithmic. When testing the feature, users found that the AI suggests stylistic adjustments—such as “leveraging anecdotes” or “posing accountability questions”—attributing these strategies to specific journalists. While the software provides writing tips, the lack of real human expertise behind the “expert” label remains a point of contention for both the industry and the figures being emulated.