Grammarly AI Feature Faces Backlash for Using Experts Without Consent (Including a Deceased Scholar)

Grammarly’s AI Expert Review Feature Faces Backlash Over Data Privacy and Ethical Concerns

Grammarly, the popular writing assistance platform, is facing mounting criticism over its latest “Expert Review” feature. Launched in August 2025, the tool utilizes artificial intelligence to provide writing feedback framed as insights from prominent authors, academics, and journalists. However, the implementation has sparked a significant backlash, as the company appears to be leveraging the names and intellectual styles of these individuals without their explicit consent, and in at least one instance, including the name of a recently deceased scholar. This raises serious questions about data privacy, intellectual property rights, and the ethical implications of AI-driven content generation.

The core of the controversy lies in how Grammarly presents this AI-generated feedback. Rather than offering generic suggestions, the platform attributes insights to specific experts, creating the impression of direct commentary. This approach, whereas intended to enhance credibility and provide nuanced guidance, has led to accusations of misrepresentation and unauthorized use of personal brand. The situation is further complicated by reports of inaccurate expert descriptions and links to questionable sources, undermining the feature’s claim of providing informed, reliable input.

Grammarly describes Expert Review as a tool designed to aid users refine their writing through feedback informed by subject matter experts. According to the company’s support documentation, the feature identifies relevant experts based on the text being analyzed and then generates suggestions reflecting those experts’ perspectives. Grammarly’s user guide details how the tool draws on publicly available expert content to provide this feedback. However, critics argue that simply referencing publicly available work does not justify presenting these experts as active contributors to the review process.

The Issue of Consent and Misrepresentation

The concerns were initially brought to light by reporting from The Verge, which found that Grammarly was generating comments attributed to its own newsroom staff – including editor-in-chief Nilay Patel, and senior editors Sean Hollister, Tom Warren, and David Pierce – without their knowledge or permission. The Verge’s investigation also revealed inaccuracies in expert descriptions and links pointing to archived or irrelevant web pages. This discovery highlighted the potential for the feature to mislead users into believing they were receiving direct feedback from these individuals.

The issue extends beyond unauthorized use of names. The presentation of AI-generated suggestions in a format resembling personal feedback blurs the line between genuine expert opinion and algorithmic imitation. This can be particularly problematic in academic or professional contexts, where credibility and originality are paramount. Users may unknowingly rely on AI-generated insights presented as expert advice, potentially compromising the integrity of their work.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the controversy involves the inclusion of the late historian David Abulafia in Grammarly’s list of experts. The University of Cambridge confirmed Professor Abulafia’s death on January 24, 2026, raising ethical questions about the use of a deceased individual’s name and intellectual legacy in a commercial AI product. This incident underscores the potential for AI tools to perpetuate inaccuracies and disrespect the contributions of those who are no longer able to defend their intellectual property.

Grammarly’s Response and the Broader Implications

In a statement to The Verge, Alex Gay, vice president of product and corporate marketing at Grammarly’s parent company, Superhuman, defended the feature, stating that it does not claim endorsement or direct participation from the listed experts. Gay explained that the experts appear as their published works are publicly available and widely cited. However, this explanation has done little to quell the criticism, as many argue that simply referencing public work does not justify presenting individuals as active contributors to the review process.

The controversy surrounding Grammarly’s Expert Review feature is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader trend of AI companies leveraging personal data and intellectual property without adequate consent or transparency. Similar concerns have been raised regarding deepfake technology, as exemplified by the recent backlash against AI-generated videos featuring actress Sydney Sweeney. Reports on the Sydney Sweeney deepfake incident highlight the growing need for regulations and ethical guidelines governing the use of AI in content creation.

This situation also raises key questions about the future of authorship and expertise in the age of AI. As AI tools become increasingly sophisticated, it will be crucial to establish clear boundaries between human and machine-generated content. Protecting the rights and reputations of individuals whose work is used to train these AI models will be essential to maintaining trust and fostering innovation.

What Does This Indicate for Users and the Future of AI Writing Tools?

For users of Grammarly and similar AI writing tools, this controversy serves as a cautionary tale. It is important to remember that AI-generated feedback is not a substitute for genuine expert opinion. While these tools can be helpful for identifying grammatical errors and improving clarity, they should not be relied upon as a source of authoritative guidance. Users should always critically evaluate the suggestions provided by AI tools and verify information with trusted sources.

The incident also highlights the need for greater transparency from AI companies regarding their data collection and usage practices. Users deserve to know how their data is being used and whether their personal information is being leveraged to train AI models. Clear and concise privacy policies, along with robust consent mechanisms, are essential to building trust and ensuring responsible AI development.

Looking ahead, it is likely that regulators will begin to scrutinize the practices of AI companies more closely. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, for example, is expected to impose strict regulations on the development and deployment of high-risk AI systems. Similar legislation may be considered in other jurisdictions, potentially leading to a more regulated landscape for AI-powered writing tools.

Key Takeaways:

• Grammarly’s “Expert Review” feature has sparked controversy due to its use of experts’ names without consent.
• The feature presents AI-generated feedback as if it were direct commentary from these experts, raising concerns about misrepresentation.
• The inclusion of a deceased historian in the expert list has amplified ethical concerns.
• This incident highlights the broader need for transparency and ethical guidelines in the development and deployment of AI tools.
• Users should critically evaluate AI-generated feedback and verify information with trusted sources.

The debate surrounding Grammarly’s Expert Review feature is likely to continue as the company navigates the complex ethical and legal challenges posed by AI-driven content generation. The company has not yet announced any changes to the feature as of March 9, 2026, but is reportedly reviewing its policies regarding expert attribution. Users and industry observers will be watching closely to witness how Grammarly responds to these concerns and whether it will adopt more transparent and ethical practices in the future.

What are your thoughts on Grammarly’s Expert Review feature? Share your opinions and experiences in the comments below. And be sure to share this article with your network to raise awareness about the ethical implications of AI-powered writing tools.