AAA and AI in arbitration: the AI arbitrator and AAA-ICDR’s guidance

The short version

• The AI Led Arbitration Rules are AAA’s only rule set built around AI, used when both parties choose its AI arbitrator. The ICDR’s International Dispute Resolution Procedures do not mention AI.
• The AI arbitrator takes two-party construction cases decided on documents alone, for a US$2,500 filing fee. An AI drafts the award; a human arbitrator decides what to change and signs it.
• AAA’s July 2026 release notes say binding arbitration on the AI platform is not available in California.
• AAA-ICDR’s guidance says arbitrators should disclose generative AI use that “materially impacts” the process or their reasoning, but not administrative or clerical uses or AI built into its case platform.
• As of 28 October 2026 we found no AAA count of AI arbitrator cases or awards (how we search).^{2,9,11,13,15,21,24}

What has AAA-ICDR published or done on AI?

The American Arbitration Association (AAA) and its international division, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), have published guidance for arbitrators, standards for AI in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and rules for an opt-in AI arbitrator, almost all since 2025. The guidance and the standards carry the joint name AAA-ICDR; the AI Led Arbitration Rules carry AAA’s name alone.^1,2,5,8,9

What do AAA’s rules say about AI?

The AI Led Arbitration Rules (also written AI-Led) are AAA’s only rule set built around AI. They apply when both parties agree to use the AI arbitrator (R-2(a), (c)), and the version in force at filing governs the case (R-2(b)). AAA-ICDR’s AI guidance for arbitrators sits outside the rules: the January 2026 text says it “supplements” the arbitrators’ ethics codes (preamble).^2,9,11,12

The ICDR’s International Dispute Resolution Procedures (amended and effective 1 March 2021) do not mention AI. They let the tribunal (the arbitrator or arbitrators) and the parties consider how technology could make a case more efficient (art. 22(2)), and the tribunal must discuss cybersecurity, privacy and data protection at the procedural hearing (art. 22(3)).¹³

AAA’s model clauses “with AI Language” send disputes about the design, development, licence, sale or use of AI systems to arbitration under AAA’s or the ICDR’s usual rules. None of them sends a case to the AI arbitrator, which the parties must choose (R-2(a)). JAMS’s Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause and Rules, announced on 23 April 2024 and amended with effect from 14 June 2024, govern arbitrations about AI systems, not a neutral’s own use of AI. Every institution’s AI texts are summarised in the AI rules tracker.^9,14,41,43

What is AAA’s AI arbitrator, and who can use it?

AAA’s AI Led Arbitration Rules (amended and effective 18 February 2026) govern its opt-in AI arbitrator: in two-party, documents-only cases, which AAA lists for construction only, an AI drafts the award and a human arbitrator reviews it, may rewrite it and signs it. Filing costs US$2,500 for the claims and the same for any counterclaims (Arbitration Cost).^9,24

The Rules apply to “all two-party disputes” on AAA’s platform (Introduction), and a case with more parties may be removed (R-10). AAA says the current process is not meant for complex or high-value cases, or for cases that need witnesses at a hearing.^9,17

AAA AI arbitration runs in five steps (Technical Overview, p. 1). The AI does not issue the award; the human arbitrator does (R-2(c)).^9,19

• Submission: up to four written stages of 10 business days each, with one 5-business-day extension per party for each (R-6(a), (e)).
• Party validation: the parties, a first human in the loop, check and comment on the AI’s summaries of their submissions (R-6(g)).
• Analysis: the AI analyses the issues, evidence and law.
• Draft award: the AI drafts an award with brief reasons (R-8(a)(i)).
• Human review: the arbitrator approves, edits or rewrites the draft and signs the award, due 5 business days after the feedback deadline (R-8(a)(ii), (iii), (b)).^8,9,19

The February 2026 text replaced the first version of 3 November 2025. It adds to the parties’ consent that the arbitrator revises the AI’s preliminary decision as needed and issues the award (R-2(c)), though the power to rewrite the draft was already in R-8(a)(ii). It also adds a reply on counterclaims (R-6(a)(iv)) and widens confidentiality to all matters relating to the arbitration or the award (R-9).^9,10

AAA’s Release 1.6 notes of 9 July 2026 say the platform takes monetary claims only and that binding arbitration is not available in California. The notes give no reason, and we found none elsewhere.²¹

Whether an AI can act as an arbitrator, and how AI is used in arbitration generally, is covered in our guide to AI in arbitration. Whether a human-signed, AI-assisted award can be enforced is in AI and award enforcement.

What results and safeguards has AAA reported for the AI arbitrator?

For its AI arbitrator, AAA reports resolution 20 to 25% faster at a cost 35% or more lower (35 to 45% on its product page), with no published method, sample or case count. In November 2025 it put early testing at about 20% faster, with cost reductions averaging about 35%. Each figure is AAA’s own claim.^15,16,17,18

AAA’s announcement of 17 September 2025 says the model learned from more than 1,500 construction awards, with examples labelled by experts (para 4), and was developed in collaboration with an outside consulting firm’s AI unit (para 8). AAA measures accuracy against benchmark cases decided by human arbitrators (Technical Overview, p. 2).^7,19

AAA says case data and outputs are kept out of model training, and that its controls “align with SOC 2 Type 2 standards”, an independent audit framework for security controls, without saying it holds a SOC 2 report (Technical Overview, p. 2). A video of 19 February 2026 says the system analyses only the materials submitted in each case.^19,20

AAA’s FAQ says the AI’s analysis of the key issues and its draft award are not shown to the parties, who see only the final award. Its Technical Overview, though, says parties may comment on the AI analysis (p. 1).^15,19

What does AAA expect of arbitrators, parties and mediators who use AI?

The AAA-ICDR Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools encourages arbitrators to use AI within their ethics codes, as long as they check its outputs and keep control of the decision. The AAAi Standards of 9 May 2025 cover ADR administrators, neutrals (who include mediators) and advocates for the parties. Among other points, the January 2026 revision of the guidance adds:^1,2,5,6

• Keep a brief record of key verification steps when relying on AI-assisted summaries or citations (Consideration 1).
• Discuss AI at the preliminary hearing, the first meeting to plan the case, and perhaps set expectations in a procedural order (Consideration 2).
• Keep the judgment their own: arbitrators “cannot delegate their duty of reasoned judgment” (Consideration 3; see non-delegation).
• Keep confidential material out of public AI systems without “contractual assurances against data reuse, model training, or third-party access”, and check tools’ retention and memory settings (Confidentiality and Data Protection).^1,2

Under the Standards, neutrals should not lean too much on one party’s or one vendor’s outputs (Standard 1), should use secure tools (Standard 2) and should review the evidence first-hand (Standard 5). They should also check AI material in submissions for misstatements, bias or dubious references, which guards against hallucination (Standard 4). Advocates should protect case data (Standard 2) and explain how they used AI (Standard 4).⁶

Must AI use be disclosed in an AAA arbitration?

AAA-ICDR’s Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools (March 2025, revised January 2026) asks arbitrators to disclose generative AI use “when such use materially impacts the arbitration process or the reasoning underlying their decisions” (Consideration 4). It is guidance, not a rule: it says arbitrators “should” disclose and does not say what follows if they do not. The January 2026 revision adds detail:^1,2

• When: AI outputs “inform or influence substantive reasoning, award language, or analysis of evidence”.
• How: as soon as practicable, for example in a procedural order, for which it offers sample wording.
• If asked: answer a party’s question about AI use transparently, within the bounds of confidentiality and procedural fairness.
• Not needed: administrative or clerical uses such as grammar checks, or AI built into AAA-ICDR’s case platform.²

In an AI arbitrator case, the parties agree to AI use when they choose the process (R-2(c)). The AAAi Standards also ask neutrals generally, including mediators, to tell case participants how AI informs their process (Standard 4). AAA’s Panel Ethics page still links the March 2025 PDF, but its governance page links the January 2026 text, which we treat as current (tracker entry). What other institutions ask arbitrators to disclose is compared in our guide to AI in arbitration. How to opt in by clause, and model procedural-order wording, is in AI arbitration clauses.^3,4,6,9

How does AAA use AI itself, and which AI tools does it offer?

AAA’s own staff use AI to prepare lists of arbitrators and to flag possible “loser-pay” terms in contracts. AAA also offers parties and neutrals AI tools for most stages of a case, set out below.^24,25,42

AI in mediation and online dispute resolution is covered in our guide to AI in dispute resolution. AAA’s Resolution Simulator and ClauseBuilder AI are covered in our guide to AI used before a dispute.

How does AAA govern its AI, and what has it said about regulation?

AAA’s AI Governance Committee oversees governance of the AI systems AAA develops or uses. On 26 May 2026 AAA named its first vice president for legal AI governance to chair it (para 3). On regulation we found two AAA statements: an aim to align with “leading frameworks and regulatory standards, including NIST, the EU AI Act” (para 3), and AAA-ICDR’s signature of the joint letter below. NIST is the US National Institute of Standards and Technology.^31,36

On 23 July 2026, 16 arbitral institutions and bodies sent a joint submission, coordinated by the LCIA, to the European Commission’s AI Office on its draft guidelines for classifying high-risk AI systems. They asked that, where the EU AI Act’s high-risk label for alternative dispute resolution (Annex III point 8(a)) applies, it attach to AI used by or for the tribunal when it decides, not to the tools institutions use to administer cases (s 5). AAA-ICDR signed it, as the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. Our glossary explains high-risk AI and purely ancillary administrative activities. What the letter asked, and why, is in our guide to AI in dispute resolution in Europe.^36,37

California’s SB 574, approved on 30 September 2026, adds section 1282.1 to the Code of Civil Procedure from 1 January 2027: an arbitrator may not delegate any part of their decision-making to a generative AI tool ((b)(1)) or rely on generative AI information outside the record without first telling the parties ((b)(2)). Our guide to AI in arbitration covers it.^38,39

The State of AI in U.S. Arbitration 2026, which AAA co-published, surveyed 557 US arbitration professionals. Inaccuracy or hallucinations were the most cited concern (78%), and institutional guidelines came first among what would speed responsible adoption (30%).^34,35

How does AAA-ICDR compare with ICC, the LCIA, JAMS and SIAC on AI?

Of these five, only AAA-ICDR has guidance on arbitrators’ own use of AI and rules for AI-drafted awards. JAMS has rules for disputes about AI systems. ICC, the LCIA and SIAC have no AI provision in their arbitration rules, and ICC and the LCIA have work under way. How other bodies’ texts compare, and how AI is used in arbitration generally, is in our guide to AI in arbitration. The SCC, VIAC, SVAMC and Ciarb texts have their own explainers.

What is AAA still working on, and what is not settled?

• Use: we found no AAA count of AI arbitrator cases or awards as of 28 October 2026.
• Expansion: AAA said other industries, dispute types and higher-value claims would follow in 2026 (17 September 2025, para 7). On 28 October 2026 its pages still listed construction cases only.
• The Resolution Simulator: its rules page said “Coming Soon” on 28 October 2026, and AAA’s texts differ on its scope (4 March 2026, para 2; product page FAQ).
• Courts: we found no court decision on enforcing an AI arbitrator award or setting one aside. In LaPaglia v. Valve Corporation, a petition to vacate (set aside) an AAA-administered award over alleged AI use, among other grounds, was dismissed on 9 December 2025 for lack of jurisdiction, without a ruling on AI. Awards challenged over AI use, including the Québec annulment, are covered in awards challenged over AI use.
• Next: an AI governance education series for corporate counsel, due in the fourth quarter of 2026 (11 March 2026, para 2) but still listed as upcoming on 28 October 2026, and resources from the AI Ambassadors’ working groups (18 September 2026, para 2).^{4,7,9,12,15,21,22,23,24,32,33,40}