Grammarly AI "Expert Review" rapped for unauthorised use of expert identities

Grammarly was loudly condemned for its "Expert Review" feature, which provides AI-generated writing advice in the names of real journalists, authors and academics without their consent, raising questions about identity rights, digital impersonation, and the company's governance and ethics. What happened Grammarly ignited a major firestorm when its AI-powered "Expert Review" feature ( User Guide ) drew fierce condemnation from the experts whose identities and life's work were used without consent to commercially power the tool's writing suggestions. Grammarly owner Superhuman markets Expert Review as a way to "meet the expectations of your discipline and your project by drawing on insights from subject matter experts and trusted publications." Writers open a document, pick a scholar from the list, and receive AI-generated feedback modelled on that person's research and style. The system can rewrite sections of a paper based on its suggestions. Wired reported that the feedback is written as though it is coming directly from well-known authors, whether those authors are living or not. Historian Verena Krebs discovered Exoert Review users are able to pick historian David Abulafia as one of the available "experts" to check their paper. Abulafia died in January 2026. The Verge found that the tool also puts words in the mouths of real journalists including Nilay Patel and Casey Newton working at The New York Times , The Atlantic , Bloomberg , Gizmodo , and other publications. None of the people named were involved in building the feature, none were contacted beforehand, and none gave the company permission to use their identities this way. No r did Superh uman ensure the AI's "advice" aligned with the experts' real-world opinions. To make matters worse, the system provided broken links to "source" material and used outdated job titles for the people it was mimicking. Why it happened The feature appears designed to increase user trust and differentiation by attaching AI-generated feedback to recognisable expert personas rather than anonymous machine output. Grammarly’s parent company, Superhuman, says it relied on the fact that these experts’ work is “publicly available” to justify using their names and styles, rather than obtaining explicit licences or consent. The U.S. lacks clear federal rules on creating synthetic versions of real people, leaving a patchwork of state laws, a regulatory gap that companies like Grammarly appear to have exploited. What it means For "experts" , the incident represents the theft of their identities and their commodification. It also associates them with a commercial product or specific advice they did not give, thereby damaging their reputations. The issue is particularly acute in the case of recently deceased individuals, whose estates have had no opportunity to manage or consent to the posthumous use of their work and legacy. For users, people receiving AI-generated feedback believe they are benefiting from expert insight, but historian C.E. Aubin told Wired : "These are not expert reviews, because there are no 'experts' involved in producing them." The feature is fundamentally misleading about the nature and quality of the advice provided. For society , it raises alarms about the "dead web" and the erosion of trust; if AI can convincingly masquerade as a specific trusted professional, the value of human critical thinking and creativity are diminished. For policymakers , the controversy highlights gaps in "Right of Publicity" and personality rights laws, which are currently struggling to keep pace with generative AI's ability to create synthetic versions of real people for commercial gain. System 🤖 Expert Review Developer: Superhuman Country: Multiple Sector: Media/entertainment/sports/arts Purpose: Provide writing feedback Technology: Generative AI Issue: Accountability; Appropriation; Authenti city/integrity; Consent; Transparency Timeline ⏰ August 2025. Grammarly/Superhuman quietly launches the "

Date it happened

2026-03-01

Organisation involved

Grammarly users

Product, system or model

Expert Review

This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.