Grammarly’s Controversial “Expert Review” Feature Sparks Ethical and Legal Concerns

In a bold and highly controversial move, Grammarly has introduced a new AI-powered feature called Expert Review, which claims to provide writing feedback “from the perspective” of world-renowned authors, thinkers, and even tech journalists. Launched in August 2025 as part of a broader suite of AI enhancements, the feature has ignited a firestorm of debate over intellectual property, consent, and the ethical use of AI in creative and professional writing.

What Is Expert Review?

Expert Review is a sidebar tool within Grammarly’s main writing assistant. It allows users to receive revision suggestions framed as if they were coming from subject matter experts—living or dead. According to Grammarly, the feature is designed to help users improve their writing by offering insights “from the perspective” of notable figures in literature, journalism, and academia.

However, a closer look reveals a more troubling reality. Reports from outlets like Wired and The Verge have uncovered that the feature sometimes attributes feedback to well-known tech journalists from publications such as The Verge, Wired, Bloomberg, and The New York Times. In some cases, it even mimics the writing styles of historical figures and contemporary authors.

The TechCrunch Angle

Curious about whether the feature would reference TechCrunch, one writer at the publication tested it by pasting an early draft of an article into Grammarly. Instead of receiving tips from TechCrunch colleagues, the tool suggested adding “ethical context like Casey Newton,” “leveraging anecdotes for reader alignment like Kara Swisher,” and “posing bigger accountability questions like Timnit Gebru.” While the suggestions were technically useful, the writer noted a sense of disappointment: if other publications were being referenced, why not TechCrunch?

Consent and Attribution: A Legal Gray Area

The most pressing issue with Expert Review is the lack of consent from the individuals being referenced. None of the authors, journalists, or thinkers mentioned in the feature appear to have given Grammarly permission to use their names or likenesses. Alex Gay, Vice President of Product and Corporate Marketing at Grammarly’s parent company Superhuman, told The Verge that these experts are mentioned “because their published works are publicly available and widely cited.”

In its user guide, Grammarly states 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.” While this disclaimer attempts to clarify the company’s position, it does little to address the ethical and legal implications of using someone’s name and intellectual identity without explicit permission.

Expert Opinions: It’s Not Really an “Expert Review”

Historian C.E. Aubin, speaking to Wired, put it bluntly: “These are not expert reviews, because there are no ‘experts’ involved in producing them.” The feature, Aubin argues, is essentially a marketing gimmick that leverages the reputations of well-known figures to lend credibility to AI-generated suggestions.

This sentiment is echoed by many in the tech and literary communities, who see the feature as a form of intellectual appropriation. By attributing AI-generated feedback to real people, Grammarly risks misleading users into believing they are receiving insights from actual experts.

Broader Implications for AI and Ethics

The controversy surrounding Expert Review raises broader questions about the ethical use of AI in creative and professional contexts. As AI tools become increasingly sophisticated, the line between inspiration and appropriation grows thinner. Companies like Grammarly must navigate this landscape carefully, balancing innovation with respect for intellectual property and individual rights.

For writers, journalists, and creators, the feature serves as a reminder to critically evaluate the tools they use and the sources of the feedback they receive. While AI can be a powerful aid in the writing process, it is not a substitute for genuine expertise and human insight.

Conclusion

Grammarly’s Expert Review feature is a fascinating yet deeply problematic experiment in AI-assisted writing. While it offers users a novel way to receive feedback, it also highlights the ethical and legal challenges of using AI to mimic human expertise. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the future of AI in writing will require careful consideration of consent, attribution, and the value of human creativity.

Tags: #Grammarly #AIWriting #ExpertReview #TechEthics #IntellectualProperty #AIControversy #WritingTools #TechJournalism #AIInnovation #DigitalEthics

Viral Phrases:

• “AI-generated feedback, human reputation”
• “The ethics of AI impersonation”
• “When AI borrows your name”
• “Grammarly’s bold move, big backlash”
• “Consent in the age of AI”
• “The future of writing, the ethics of now”
• “Expert Review or Expert Theft?”
• “AI tools, human rights”
• “The line between inspiration and appropriation”
• “TechCrunch left out, ethics left behind”

,