AI arbitration clauses: model wording for contracts and procedural orders

The short version

• An arbitration clause is the contract term that sends future disputes to arbitration. An AI arbitration clause adds wording that fixes how AI may be used in the case, in the arbitration agreement or, more often, in the first procedural order.
• Every institutional text we read keeps the decision with the arbitrator, and most model wording is written for a procedural order, not the clause.
• SVAMC, Ciarb (a template agreement and a template order) and the AAA-ICDR publish model wording you can adopt; VIAC recommends agreeing AI provisions in the first procedural order; CIETAC alone recommends putting the AI terms in the arbitration clause itself.
• The AAA clauses with AI language and the JAMS AI Disputes Clause and Rules cover disputes about AI systems, not a neutral’s own use of AI.
• AAA’s AI arbitrator is opt-in and post-dispute. An ordinary AAA clause does not force the AI track, and the responding party must agree.
• The parties’ agreement governs procedure, but mandatory law can override it. California bars arbitrators from delegating any decision-making to generative AI from 1 January 2027.^{1,4,7,8,10,13,16,17,28,37,38}

Should AI terms go in the arbitration clause or a procedural order?

Either, but the published texts lean to the procedural order. A clause agreed before a dispute can date as tools change, and it can only be altered if both sides agree.^4,16

The parties set the procedure. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law they are free to agree the procedure the tribunal follows, and failing agreement the tribunal decides (art. 19); the Arbitration Act 1996 is to the same effect (s 34(1)). Where the AI terms belong then depends on the text. CIETAC recommends embedding the parties’ AI agreement in the arbitration clause unless the law provides otherwise (5.1). Most others point to the first case management conference, the tribunal’s first procedural meeting with the parties, and to Procedural Order No. 1: Ciarb (4.6, 5.1 to 5.3), VIAC (5.3), the AAA-ICDR (Consideration 2) and KCAB (art. 16.5). This piece sits under our pillar on AI in arbitration.^{4,7,16,17,20,28,30}

The ICC takes the same line. Its 2022 technology report calls it “unusual and impractical” to address technology at the contract-drafting stage, and prefers to agree specifics after the dispute, at the Article 24 case management conference (3.1). The 2026 ICC Rules carry no AI provision and make terms of reference optional (Note Part III, para 6(h)). A national rulebook shows the agreement route: Peru’s IPDC Arbitration Rules 2024 let the parties freely agree to use AI to manage the arbitration, expressed in the rules or in the arbitration agreement (art. 21(3), our translation).^22,32,33,34

Is there model wording for AI use in arbitration?

Yes. Several institutions publish template text you can adopt, almost all written for a procedural order. For who must disclose what, and how to word that, see our AI disclosure explainer.^1,4,7

SVAMC publishes a Model Clause for Inclusion in Procedural Orders (p 21). It makes the SVAMC AI Guidelines apply “as guiding principles to all participants” and adds no disclosure duty of its own. The Guidelines apply where the parties agree and/or the tribunal or institution decides to adopt them, and do not derogate from any legal or ethical duty (p 8); they may be adopted in whole or in part in the arbitration agreement or at any time afterwards (p 13, Commentary). See our SVAMC guidelines explainer.¹

Ciarb publishes two templates. Appendix A is a template agreement that can stand alone or go into the arbitration agreement: it permits AI tools (para 4), gives four ways to define the permitted tools (5) and bracketed permitted uses such as research, document review, searching for inaccuracies, formatting and language review (6). The user duties (7) bind representatives and experts (7.1), require disclosure of the intended use, tool and version (7.3), verification and correction of output including after filing (7.5), no misleading output or result-seeking prompts (7.6), and confidentiality of inputs (7.7). The tribunal can order disclosure of the prompts used (8), and the Guideline prevails on conflict (11.2). See our Ciarb guideline explainer.⁴

Ciarb Appendix B is a template procedural order. Option 1, the short form, says participants “shall be guided by the Ciarb AI Guideline”. Option 2, the long form, turns on “High Risk AI Use”, defined by four risks: privacy and confidentiality, data security, procedural integrity, and a non-human influence on the award. It requires prompt written disclosure naming the tool and the parts of a document it drafted (para 2), then [seven] days to comment and [seven] to reply (3), notice and 14-day briefs before the tribunal’s own high-risk use with an optional hearing and a 14-day decision (4), and severance of any provision that breaks a mandatory rule (5).⁴

The AAA-ICDR gives sample procedural-order wording (Consideration 4), quoted below. No disclosure is needed for clerical uses or for AI built into the AAA-ICDR case platform. More is in AAA and AI in arbitration.⁷

AAA-ICDR sample procedural-order wording: “The Arbitrator may utilize secure technology and AI-assisted tools to support administrative or drafting efficiency, provided such tools do not compromise confidentiality, fairness, or independent judgment. The Arbitrator will disclose any substantive use of AI tools that materially informs its reasoning or findings.”

VIAC is non-binding, and the Vienna Rules prevail over it. Parties and arbitrators who adopt its Note should agree which AI tools it covers (Applicability, p 2), and it suggests agreeing provisions on confidentiality and the transparent use of AI, for example in Procedural Order No. 1 (5.3); our VIAC explainer has the detail. CIETAC’s July 2025 trial guidelines let the parties agree whether and how AI is used, including which tools are permitted, limited or banned, and disclosure (3.1).^16,17

Four other texts add duties rather than wording, with their pinpoints in the table. The SCC Guide has no model clause and says the parties’ agreement and mandatory rules prevail. WIPO says AI use should comply with the parties’ agreement and lets a neutral set guidelines during the proceedings (ss 1, 5). KCAB art. 16.5 has the tribunal discuss AI tools with the parties. NAA Advisory Opinion 28, for labour-management arbitrators, needs mutual consent before AI assists any decision-making function (Part IV).^18,19,20,21

What do real procedural orders say about AI?

Published first procedural orders at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) take two drafting approaches. We summarise them rather than reprint the order-by-order disclosure breakdown, which is in our AI disclosure explainer.^23,24,25,26

The first approach permits AI with no delegation. In ENCORE v. Türkiye (ARB/24/46) the tribunal may use AI for summaries, organising the record and legal research, with no decision delegated (s 28.1). In Woodhouse and West Cumbria Mining v. United Kingdom (ARB/25/37, s 30) the same permission, including generative AI, runs to both the parties and the tribunal, with outputs reviewed and verified (30.1, 30.3) and all determinations of fact, law, procedure and discretion kept with the tribunal (30.4).^23,24

The second approach bars AI from the reasoning. The two PanAfrican Energy orders (ARB/25/42 s 28; ARB/25/43 s 29) forbid the tribunal from using AI to draft the reasoning part of the award, and their party duties follow Ciarb Appendix A almost verbatim: verify output, do not mislead, preserve confidentiality, and help reproduce outputs by disclosing the prompts. ARB/25/24 (25 February 2026) has no AI section at all. For a drafter, both models are in use and the party-duty wording is portable. None of the orders makes the parties disclose their AI use up front.^4,25,26,27

How do you draft an arbitration clause for disputes about AI systems?

Two institutions publish ready clauses aimed at contracts whose subject is AI, not at a neutral’s own AI use. The AAA offers six model clauses with AI language, for Commercial, Construction, Fixed Time and Cost Construction, Employment and Workplace, International (ICDR-administered), and Healthcare matters. Each adds disputes about “the design, development, license, sale, or use” of AI, machine learning and generative AI systems, tools or products. None sends the case to the AI arbitrator.^8,13

JAMS publishes an AI Disputes Clause: JAMS mediation, then final and binding arbitration under the JAMS AI Disputes Rules, with the arbitration itself to determine the scope or applicability of the agreement to arbitrate, the seat left as [location] and the language English. The Rules apply where the parties agree or, absent agreement, where the dispute is AI-related (Rule 1(a)). JAMS proposes only panellists it has approved for technical subject matter (15(b)), and its AI Disputes Protective Order applies unless the parties agree another (16.1(a)), with AI systems, models and training data inspected only by experts in a secured environment the disclosing party sets up (16.1(b)). See our JAMS explainer.^13,14

Keeping case material confidential when AI is used, including the AI Disputes Protective Order, is covered in confidentiality and AI in arbitration. A clause-drafting tool is different again: the AAA’s ClauseBuilder AI, launched in beta on 12 June 2024, assembles standard clauses from more than 500 curated options by case size, industry, location and rules, and excludes employment and consumer clauses. It is a drafting aid that assembles dispute-resolution clauses, including the AAA clauses with AI language above, not a clause governing a neutral’s use of AI.^8,9,15

How do parties opt in to an AI arbitrator?

With AAA’s AI arbitrator the opt-in happens after the dispute, on the platform, and the responding party must agree. Agreeing to the Digital Dispute Resolution Center or the AI Arbitrator means agreeing to the AI Led Arbitration Rules (R-2(a)) and to the AI making a preliminary decision that a human arbitrator reviews, revises, validates and finalises before issuing the award, so the human stays in the loop (R-2(c)).¹⁰

The filing party indicates its agreement on the platform, under an existing AAA clause or a signed two-party agreement (R-4(a)). The responding party has 10 business days to agree (R-4(b)(i)); if it does not but the parties had agreed to AAA arbitration, the case moves to AAA’s usual process (R-4(b)(iii)). The scope is two-party, documents-only construction cases, and no pre-dispute AI-arbitrator clause is published. For the US$2,500 fee and refund, the non-binding option (R-13), and the other limits, see AAA and AI in arbitration and the tracker entry.^10,11

What is the SVAMC model clause, and which one?

SVAMC publishes two different inserts that do different jobs, and they are easy to confuse. The 2024 Guidelines’ Model Clause for Procedural Orders is about AI use: it makes the AI Guidelines apply as guiding principles to all participants (p 21). The older Tech List insert is about who decides: “The neutral(s) shall be selected from the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center Tech List, unless otherwise impracticable.” The 2026 Tech List names 55 neutrals; use it in a full dispute-resolution clause, not as an AI-use clause.^1,2,3

What should an AI clause or first procedural order settle?

Across the published texts, a workable AI provision answers a short list of questions. Cover those and stop; a longer clause only dates faster as the tools change.^1,4

• Which text governs, and whom it binds (SVAMC p 21; Ciarb Appendix A paras 7.1, 7.3).
• The permitted tools and uses, and any bans (Ciarb Appendix A paras 5 to 6; CIETAC 3.1; Ciarb 2021 framework 3.2).
• Verification, no misleading output, and confidentiality of inputs (Ciarb Appendix A paras 7.5 to 7.7).
• A disclosure standard and comment period, with the detail in the disclosure explainer (SVAMC Guideline 3; Ciarb Appendix B paras 2 to 3; AAA-ICDR Consideration 4).
• The tribunal’s own use, and consent for any decision-making use (Ciarb 9.1 and Appendix A para 10; NAA Part IV; ARB/24/46 s 28), the point of non-delegation.
• The consequences of breach, and the power to revise the order (Ciarb 4.6, 4.7; Appendix B para 5, severability).
• A data note: the ICDR rules expect the tribunal to discuss cybersecurity, privacy and data protection (art. 22(2), (3)), and the ICC Model Data Protection Clause for Procedural Order One covers personal data, not AI.^{1,4,5,7,17,21,23,31,35}

Can the parties’ agreement be overridden by law?

Yes. Party autonomy is the default, but mandatory law and enforcement grounds set limits a clause cannot contract around. A procedure that departs from the parties’ agreement is both a set-aside ground (Model Law art. 34(2)(a)(iv)) and a ground to refuse enforcement (New York Convention art. V(1)(d)); we walk those grounds in AI and award enforcement.^28,29

California is the clearest limit. SB 574 adds Code of Civil Procedure section 1282.1, which bars an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decision-making to any generative AI tool, and from relying on generative-AI information outside the record without disclosing it beforehand and, as far as practical, letting the parties comment. It has no party opt-out and takes effect on 1 January 2027, so a clause that lets AI decide risks vacatur. A US bill, H.R. 9715, would allow AI-assisted arbitration under title 9 of the US Code only with each party’s written consent and bar generative AI; it was referred to committee on 15 July 2026 with no further action.^37,38,39

The EU AI Act can treat AI that helps decide an arbitration or other ADR whose outcome has legal effects as high-risk (Annex III point 8(a); recital 61); those duties apply from 2 December 2027 under the Digital Omnibus on AI, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. How the Act reaches arbitration and ADR, and who is a provider or deployer, is in the EU AI Act in dispute resolution.^40,41

The courts are starting to draw the line too. In ARIHQ c. Santé Québec, 2026 QCCS 1360 (22 April 2026) the Superior Court of Québec annulled a sole arbitrator’s award after finding that the authorities it relied on did not exist or did not support it, and that the arbitrator had delegated the decision. LaPaglia v. Valve Corp. was dismissed on 9 December 2025 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so no US court has ruled on whether AI use can vacate an award; both are argued in awards challenged over AI use.^42,43

What is not settled about AI arbitration clauses?

• How often AI clauses are actually adopted. We found no count of contracts or orders using the model wording; the 2025 Queen Mary University of London survey records only that 38% of respondents named regulatory gaps as an obstacle.
• Whether a mandatory, pre-dispute AI-arbitration clause, one that forces an AI-led process, would be enforced. AAA’s process stays opt-in and post-dispute.
• Whether a clause can validly consent to decision-making AI use where mandatory law, such as California from 2027, forbids delegation.
• What the ICC, Ciarb and the LCIA publish next: the ICC has an AI task force on record, Ciarb invited feedback on its guideline, and the LCIA is consulting on a rules revision.
• For mediation, AAA’s AI Agreement to Mediate Builder and the IBA mediation guidelines’ sample AI usage statement are covered in AI in mediation.^{6,10,12,36,37,44,45,46}