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

A recently added feature in Grammatically claims to improve users’ writing with the help of the world’s greatest writers and thinkers – as well as some technology journalists.

Launched in August 2025 As part of a broader suite of AI-powered features, Expert Review appears in the sidebar of Grammarly’s main writing assistant, allowing users to provide revision suggestions “from the perspective” of subject matter experts.

Noted wired that Grammarly frames this feedback as coming from well-known authors, whether living or dead. In some cases according to The Vergeit may even appear as if it comes from technology journalists at The Verge, Wired, Bloomberg, The New York Times and other publications.

Naturally, I wondered: what about TechCrunch? I copied and pasted an early version of this post into Grammar hoping to see some tips from my TC colleagues, but instead I was told to add ethical context like Casey Newton, “use the anecdote to get the reader on the same page” like Kara Swisher, and “ask the bigger accountability question” like Timnit Gebru.

That was all quite disappointing: yes, the feature seems poorly thought out, but as All those other pubs will be mentioned, what are we doing wrong?

Anyway, to state the obvious: none of these figures appear to be involved with Expert Reviews or have given Grammarly permission to use their names. 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.”

And in being user manual for the functionGrammarly says: “References to experts in Expert Review are for informational purposes only and do not indicate any association with Grammarly or endorsement by those individuals or entities.”

That’s pretty clear, I think. But it begs the question: in what sense does Grammarly actually offer an “expert review”? Perhaps none at all, as historian CE Aubin told Wired: “These are not expert reviews, because there are no ‘experts’ involved in their production.”