Grammarly Shuts Down 'Expert Review' After Backlash

The AI-powered writing assistant faced criticism for impersonating real experts without their consent.

Mar. 12, 2026 at 1:36am by Ben Kaplan

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Grammarly, the popular AI-powered writing assistant, has shut down its 'Expert Review' feature after facing backlash from journalists, academics, and authors. The feature allowed users to receive writing advice that imitated the style and judgment of real-life experts, including Stephen King, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and various journalists, without their knowledge or consent. The reaction was swift, with tech journalist Casey Newton and investigative journalist Julia Angwin condemning the practice. Grammarly's CEO acknowledged the concerns and said the company will rethink its approach going forward.

Why it matters

This incident highlights the ethical challenges that can arise as AI technology becomes more advanced and integrated into everyday tools. The impersonation of real experts without their permission raises concerns about the potential for AI to be used in misleading or deceptive ways, undermining the credibility of the individuals and the writing advice itself. It also reflects the broader tension between the rapid development of AI capabilities and the need to ensure these technologies are deployed responsibly and with respect for individual privacy and consent.

The details

Grammarly's 'Expert Review' feature allowed users to select from a roster of 'leading professionals, authors, and subject-matter experts,' whose AI-generated advice would be presented as if it came directly from those individuals. However, many of the experts associated with the feature, including tech journalist Casey Newton and investigative journalist Julia Angwin, were not actually involved or consulted. Angwin has since launched a lawsuit against Grammarly, stating that the company was 'selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise.' In response, Grammarly has disabled the feature and acknowledged that the experts may have felt their voices were misrepresented.

  • On March 11, 2026, Grammarly disabled the 'Expert Review' feature after facing backlash from the real experts whose names were associated with the tool.

The players

Grammarly

A popular AI-powered writing assistant with an estimated 40 million users across more than 500,000 organizations.

Casey Newton

A tech journalist and former senior editor at The Verge, who criticized Grammarly for impersonating writers without their consent.

Julia Angwin

An investigative journalist formerly of the Wall Street Journal, who has launched a lawsuit against Grammarly for using her expertise without permission.

Shishir Mehrotra

The chief executive of Superhuman Platform Inc., the parent company of Grammarly, who acknowledged the concerns and said the company will rethink its approach.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“I've long assumed that before too long, AI might take my job. I just assumed that someone would tell me when it happened.”

— Casey Newton, Tech journalist

“I have worked for decades honing my skills as a writer and editor, and I am distressed to discover that a tech company is selling an imposter version of my hard-earned expertise.”

— Julia Angwin, Investigative journalist

“I want to apologize and acknowledge that we'll rethink our approach going forward.”

— Shishir Mehrotra, CEO, Superhuman Platform Inc.

What’s next

Grammarly has indicated that it will rethink its approach to the 'Expert Review' feature, but it remains to be seen how the company will address the concerns raised by the real experts and the broader ethical implications of using AI to impersonate individuals without their consent.

The takeaway

This incident highlights the need for AI companies to develop and deploy their technologies responsibly, with a strong emphasis on transparency, consent, and respect for individual privacy and expertise. As AI capabilities continue to advance, it will be crucial for the industry to proactively address these ethical challenges to maintain public trust and ensure that these powerful tools are used in ways that benefit, rather than undermine, the individuals and communities they serve.