What Happened
Grammarly recently rolled out a feature called "expert review" that markets itself as providing writing feedback inspired by the world's great writers and thinkers. According to TechCrunch's reporting on March 7, the feature also references tech journalists as part of its expert pool.
The catch: there don't appear to be actual experts reviewing anything. The feature uses AI to generate suggestions styled after well-known writers and thought leaders, then presents those suggestions as if they carry the weight of expert endorsement. It's a branding exercise layered on top of the same large language model output Grammarly already delivers.
This isn't Grammarly partnering with published authors to review your prose. It's Grammarly telling its AI to pretend it's channeling famous writers.
Why It Matters
This matters for anyone relying on AI writing tools because it highlights a growing trend: companies repackaging standard AI features under premium-sounding names to justify pricing tiers or drive engagement.
When Grammarly says "expert review," a reasonable person expects some form of human expertise in the loop. Instead, users get AI-generated feedback with a celebrity writer's name attached. That gap between expectation and reality erodes trust in AI tool marketing broadly.
For the millions of people who use Grammarly daily for emails, reports, and content, the practical question is simple: does the output actually improve? If the AI suggestions are solid regardless of branding, the "expert" label is just annoying marketing. If users make different decisions because they believe a real expert weighed in, that's a more serious problem.
This also sets a bad precedent. If Grammarly can call AI output "expert review," every tool maker will follow. We'll see "expert analysis" in spreadsheet tools, "master chef recommendations" in recipe apps, and "professional review" badges on AI-generated everything. The word "expert" will mean nothing.
Our Take
Grammarly has been in an awkward position since ChatGPT arrived. Their core product - grammar and style checking - is now a commodity feature built into every AI assistant. So they need to add value, and "expert review" is their attempt at differentiation.
The problem isn't using AI to suggest writing improvements. That's fine and useful. The problem is the deliberate choice to brand it as "expert" when no experts are involved. It's the kind of misleading framing that makes people skeptical of AI tools in general.
We've tested plenty of writing tools, and the honest ones are upfront about what's AI and what's human. Tools like Clearscope are transparent about using algorithms for content optimization. Grammarly could have called this "style-inspired suggestions" or "writing coach mode" and gotten the same functionality without the credibility risk.
If you're a Grammarly user, the feature might still produce useful suggestions. Just know that when it says an "expert" reviewed your writing, it means an AI model generated a suggestion loosely associated with a famous person's style. Calibrate your trust accordingly.
The broader lesson: as AI tools compete for attention, watch for the gap between what features are called and what they actually do. That gap is where you waste money and make bad decisions.