AI started deciding arbitrations this year. Then the rule-writers showed up.

I run business development for an AI arbitration company, so I read the rulebooks for a living. Something has shifted in the last twelve months. More changed in how disputes get resolved than in the ten years before, and most of it happened quietly, in rule revisions and press releases that only arbitration lawyers read.

So I read them. Here’s the map.

The institutions moved first

The American Arbitration Association launched its AI Arbitrator on November 3, 2025. It started with two-party, documents-only construction cases. Using it is opt-in, and it’s trained on AAA construction awards. The AI drafts, and a human arbitrator reviews it, revises it if needed and authorizes every award. In January the AAA added workflows for counterclaim replies and for a party that simply doesn’t show up. On March 4 it launched a Resolution Simulator: one side submits its documents and gets a simulated, nonbinding outcome before deciding whether to file.

The ICC published its 2026 Rules, effective June 1. Terms of Reference are no longer mandatory. There’s a new opt-in highly expedited procedure: a sole arbitrator, an award within three months and no extensions. Tribunals can now dismiss claims that are “manifestly without merit” early. And the automatic expedited-procedure threshold rises to $4 million for agreements signed from June 1 on.

JAMS revised its International Arbitration Rules effective March 1. Claimants can now serve the request for arbitration electronically, and the hard-copy filing requirement is gone.

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators updated its Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration in September 2025. It comes with template language parties can adopt: an agreement on AI use, and a procedural order.

The small-dispute layer is getting built

Dyspute.ai relaunched its AI mediator as Adri v2 on January 13. It runs around the clock and asynchronously, so nobody has to be online at the same time. The base price is $299, it’s aimed at disputes under $25,000, and it’s embedded in startup legal agreements through partners such as New Era ADR.

Salt Lake City’s Justice Court moved small claims into online dispute resolution this year. A facilitator helps the parties negotiate online. If they settle, the paperwork is filed without anyone setting foot in a courtroom. If they don’t, a trial gets scheduled.

The direction is the same at both ends of the market: resolution is moving to where the parties already are.

Then the rule-writers showed up

California SB 574 passed the Legislature unanimously on August 31 and went to Governor Newsom on September 9. He has until September 30 to act. As passed, it would bar an arbitrator from delegating any part of the decision-making process to generative AI. It would require disclosure, and a chance for the parties to comment, before an arbitrator relies on AI-generated information from outside the record. It would also make the arbitrator responsible for every part of the award, whatever tools were used. If it’s signed, it would be the first law of its kind in the country.

The EU AI Act classifies AI used to help decide disputes, including in alternative dispute resolution, as high-risk. The obligations were due to start on August 2, 2026. The AI Omnibus, which took effect on July 27, pushed that to December 2, 2027. That’s a delay, not a repeal.

And the Supreme Court tidied up the edges

In Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (May 14, unanimous), the Court held that a federal court that pauses a lawsuit for arbitration keeps the power to confirm or vacate the award that comes back.

Two weeks later, in Flowers Foods v. Brock (May 28), it held that local drivers delivering goods that came from out of state can fall under the Federal Arbitration Act’s transportation-worker exemption, even if they never cross a state line. If your arbitration program covers a delivery workforce, that’s worth a conversation with counsel.

The pattern

Every serious AI move this year kept a human signing the award. The AAA built its product that way. CIArb’s guideline assumes it. California would write it into law. The EU classifies AI in dispute resolution as high-risk, and human oversight is one of the things that label requires.

The question is no longer whether AI can help resolve a dispute. It’s whether you can show who decided it.

That isn’t bad news for speed. The ICC’s new track promises an award in three months. The AAA’s AI drafts and a person decides. Fast and accountable turn out to be compatible. What doesn’t survive is a black box.

What I’d actually do this month

• Read your own clause. Check which rules it points to and which version. Several of the changes above turn on dates: when your agreement was signed, or when a case is filed.
• Have a one-sentence answer to “who decides?” If AI touches your resolution process, or will, be ready to name the human who signs off and say what that person reviews. Customers, partners and regulators are all starting to ask.
• Watch September 30. Whatever the governor does with SB 574, other states will be working from its text.

One honest observation

Most businesses with an arbitration clause haven’t read it since the day a lawyer drafted it. The rules it points to have changed underneath it, and so have the tools. None of this needs a panic. It needs an afternoon.

Next month: HOA and condo disputes, what associations are required to offer owners before they collect, and where resolution fits.

If you run a platform, an association or a finance team that handles small disputes at volume, my inbox is open.

Sources

• AAA-ICDR: AI Arbitrator now available for documents-only construction cases (Nov. 3, 2025)
• AAA: AI Arbitrator updates, January 2026
• LawSites: AAA launches Resolution Simulator (Mar. 4, 2026)
• Crowell & Moring: ICC 2026 Arbitration Rules, key changes
• JAMS: updated International Arbitration Rules (effective Mar. 1, 2026)
• CIArb: Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (updated Sept. 2025)
• LawSites: Dyspute.ai launches Adri v2 (Jan. 13, 2026)
• Salt Lake City Justice Court: Small Claims ODR
• SB 574 bill status · Sullivan & Cromwell · Farella Braun + Martel
• European Commission: AI Omnibus enters into force (July 27, 2026)
• Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (May 14, 2026) · Barley Snyder on Jules and Flowers Foods v. Brock (May 28, 2026)