JAMS and AI in arbitration: its rules for disputes about AI systems

The short version

• JAMS’s AI rules, the Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause and Rules, govern arbitrations about AI systems. Announced on 23 April 2024, they were amended with effect from 14 June 2024.
• What is specific to these rules: a default protective order, expert-only inspection of AI systems and training data, lists of technically approved panellists where the parties have not chosen an arbitrator, and confidentiality that binds the parties.
• They do not govern how arbitrators, mediators or parties use AI, and we found no published JAMS rule or guideline on that (how we search).
• JAMS uses AI in optional services: AI-assisted transcription, which needs every party’s agreement, and a chatbot for finding neutrals (the arbitrators and mediators on its panel).
• JAMS began gathering information for its AI expert list in June 2026. We found no published list as of 28 October 2026.
• JAMS was not among the signatories of the 23 July 2026 joint submission by 16 arbitral institutions and bodies to the European Commission’s AI Office.^{1,2,3,4,10,11,13,14,15,16,19,27}

What has JAMS published or done on AI?

Since April 2024 JAMS has published one set of arbitration rules for AI disputes, with a protective order and a model clause, and added AI to JAMS Next, its optional technology services. Its rules, releases and service pages speak for JAMS. Most articles in JAMS Insights, its online commentary, give their authors’ views.^1,13,14

JAMS is a private provider of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services. Founded in 1979, it says it received nearly 22,000 new case filings in 2025.¹⁸

What do the JAMS AI arbitration rules cover?

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. They apply to binding JAMS-administered arbitrations where the parties agree to use them or, absent such agreement, where the disputes or claims are “AI-related”, unless other rules are prescribed (Rule 1(a), p. 1).^1,2,3,4

The rules go by at least three names: the Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause and Rules (the rules page, which also carries the model clause), the JAMS Artificial Intelligence Dispute Rules (Rule 1(a)) and Rules Governing Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems (their heading).^1,2

Rule 1(e) defines artificial intelligence as “a machine-based system capable of completing tasks that would otherwise require cognition” (p. 1).²

• Arbitrators: where the parties have not agreed on one, JAMS lists only panellists it has approved for technical disputes, subject to availability (Rule 15(b), p. 9).
• Expert inspection: the party producing an AI system sets up a secured environment where only experts may inspect it and related materials such as models and training data. Nothing may be removed from it (Rule 16.1(b), p. 11).
• Experts: if both parties ask, the arbitrator designates the experts, first trying a list of third-party experts JAMS keeps. The parties share their cost equally unless the arbitrator shifts it (Rule 16.1(b), p. 12).
• Discovery: document requests must be narrow, and each side gets one deposition (questioning a witness under oath before the hearing) unless the arbitrator allows more (Rule 16.1(c) to (e), pp. 12 to 13).
• Pace: fact discovery closes within 75 days of the preliminary conference (the arbitrator’s first case-planning meeting), and the hearing starts within 60 days after that. The arbitrator can extend both for good cause (Rule 16.1(h), (i), p. 13).
• Confidentiality: JAMS and the arbitrator must keep the case and the award confidential, and so must the parties and their lawyers (Rule 26(a), (b), p. 19).
• Model clause: JAMS mediation first, then binding arbitration under the AI rules, with the seat left blank and English as the language.^2,6

JAMS’s revision summary says the June 2024 changes clarify the scope (Rule 1(a)) and the joint designation of experts (Rule 16.1(b)). The version in effect when a case starts applies unless the parties agreed another (Rule 3, p. 2).^2,4

The AI Disputes Protective Order, which limits who may see confidential material, applies unless the parties agree another (Rule 16.1(a), p. 11). It has two tiers, Confidential and Highly Confidential, the second covering trade secrets (paras 2, 6). Unless the arbitrator or the disclosing party allows it, Highly Confidential material cannot go to the receiving party’s own in-house counsel, officers, directors or employees (para 5).^2,5

Within seven calendar days after the case ends, including any appeals, protected material must be returned or destroyed, though counsel may keep an archival set (para 16). Beyond naming the AI rules in its heading, the order says nothing about AI.⁵

How do the JAMS AI rules differ from the Comprehensive Rules, and who are they for?

The AI rules follow JAMS’s Comprehensive Arbitration Rules (effective 1 June 2021) almost word for word. They differ mainly in six points: when they apply by default, who goes on arbitrator lists, a default protective order, expert-only inspection of AI systems, expedited procedures as standard and confidentiality that binds the parties.^2,7

The AI rules leave out the Comprehensive Rules’ bar on dispositive motions, which ask the arbitrator to decide a claim or issue early without a full hearing (Comprehensive Rule 16.2(h)). Summary disposition stays open (AI Rule 18).^2,7

In our reading, the AI rules are written for disputes in which an AI system, its models or its training data must be examined, and suit parties content with a fast timetable. Unless extended, the hearing starts no more than 135 days after the preliminary conference (75 plus 60 days, Rule 16.1(h) and (i)), and the award is due 30 days after the hearing closes (Rule 24(a), p. 18). Enforcement runs under the Federal Arbitration Act or state law (Rule 25).²

The JAMS International Arbitration Rules, amended with effect from 1 March 2026, contain no AI provision, and JAMS’s summary of that revision lists no AI change.^8,9

Do JAMS’s rules say how arbitrators and parties may use AI?

No. We found no JAMS rule, policy or guideline that allows or limits AI use by its arbitrators, mediators or the parties. In our reading, that leaves AI use to the parties’ agreement and the arbitrator’s orders, within the applicable law.^{1,2,7,8,10,11}

We read the AI rules, the Comprehensive Rules, the 2026 International Arbitration Rules, JAMS’s ethics guidelines for arbitrators and mediators, and its guidelines for clerks and tribunal secretaries. The AI rules mention AI only as the subject of a dispute (Rules 1(a), 1(e) and 16.1(b)), and none of the others mentions AI in its text.^{2,7,8,10,11,12}

In a May 2024 JAMS Insights article, the rules’ self-described co-creators wrote that the rules are not intended to address neutrals’ or advocates’ use of generative AI, and that JAMS has separate internal guidelines on AI in ADR. We found no published version.²²

In October 2026 JAMS posted an article by one of its arbitrators who wants more than disclosure. In the author’s view, arbitrators should use AI only with the parties’ express agreement and for tasks involving no judgement, with safeguards in Procedural Order No. 1. The concern is non-delegation: the parties picked a particular person to decide their case. It is one arbitrator’s opinion, not JAMS policy.²⁶

Awards challenged over AI use, including the Québec annulment, are covered in awards challenged over AI use. What other institutions expect of arbitrators and parties who use AI is compared in our guide to AI in arbitration.

Must AI use be disclosed in a JAMS arbitration?

Not under JAMS’s published rules, which set no duty for arbitrators or parties to disclose AI use (tracker entry). A duty can still come from the parties’ agreement or from the law.^2,7

Parties can agree disclosure terms as a party-agreed procedure, confirmed in writing and enforceable as if contained in the rules (Rule 2(a), p. 1). We found no JAMS rule requiring consent to AI use. Rule 15(h) disclosures (p. 10) concern the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence and say nothing about tools.²

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)).^29,30

What other institutions ask arbitrators to disclose is compared in our guide to AI in arbitration.

Does JAMS use AI itself, and what is JAMS Next?

Yes, in optional JAMS Next services and in internal work. JAMS Next, launched on 10 October 2024, is JAMS’s name for its technology services; its page now lists AI-powered transcription, the AI rules and virtual ADR services.^13,14

• JAMS Next launched with AI transcription from an outside court-reporting provider and a natural-language search for neutrals, which its page no longer lists.
• Transcription terms: the provider’s platform replaces the usual videoconferencing platform, so all parties must agree to use it. JAMS receives US$50 per recorded hour from the provider for administrative support.
• Stenographic reporting, added on 12 February 2026, also needs all parties’ agreement, and JAMS receives 5% of fees from the provider for the referral. Its release says the provider’s tool uses AI to summarise testimony.
• The neutral-search chatbot: JAMS’s terms call it “a work in progress” and tell users to verify its answers independently.
• Internal use: in a January 2024 Insights article, JAMS’s then chief executive wrote that AI was already used behind the scenes in human resources and marketing, under a “measured approach” with a legal review of each potential use.^{3,13,14,15,16,17,20,23}

We found no JAMS service that drafts awards or decides cases with AI. AAA’s opt-in AI arbitrator is explained in AAA and AI in arbitration.¹⁴

What has JAMS said about regulating AI?

Little, as an institution. Its news releases mention AI regulation only in general terms, and we found no statement by JAMS itself on the EU AI Act or on California’s SB 574. Articles on its site by neutrals that discuss AI laws are their authors’ views.^3,18

The April 2024 release launching the rules mentions an “evolving regulatory and governance environment” for AI. The May 2026 release launching the Technology Industry Group quotes JAMS’s chief executive on “increasingly complex regulatory considerations” in technology disputes.^3,18

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). JAMS was not among the signatories.^27,28

What the letter asked, and why, is in our guide to AI in dispute resolution in Europe. How the EU AI Act applies to arbitration is explained in our guide to AI in arbitration.

What is JAMS working on for AI disputes?

JAMS has sought information on AI experts for the list its rules refer to, and has grouped its technology disputes work into a Technology Industry Group.^18,19

• The expert list: Request for Information AI-16.1, issued on 1 June 2026, seeks independent AI experts to inspect AI systems case by case. Responses were due by 1 October 2026, and JAMS says no contract will be awarded from it. We found no published list as of 28 October 2026.
• The Technology Industry Group (12 May 2026) covers disputes involving AI, software, cybersecurity, blockchain and other technology sectors. Its release repeats JAMS’s claim to be the first ADR provider with arbitration rules tailored to AI disputes.
• AI-on-AI incidents: an August 2026 article by a JAMS neutral argues that mediation with neutral experts could help when one organisation’s AI system harms another’s, though it cannot replace forensic investigation. That is the author’s view; we found no JAMS service for such incidents.^3,18,19,25

AI in mediation and online dispute resolution is covered in our guide to AI in dispute resolution.

How does JAMS compare with AAA-ICDR, ICC, the LCIA 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.^{1,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38}

How other bodies’ texts compare, and how AI is used in arbitration generally, is in our guide to AI in arbitration.

What is not settled about JAMS and AI?

• What counts as “AI-related” under Rule 1(a), which the rules do not define, and which systems meet the Rule 1(e) definition.
• Which rules apply by default to an AI-related claim over US$250,000 where the parties chose none: on our reading Rule 1(a) of each rule set covers it.
• Whether JAMS will publish the list of experts that Rule 16.1(b) says it maintains, when, and on what terms.
• Whether JAMS will publish the internal AI guidelines the rules’ co-creators mentioned in May 2024, or a disclosure rule for arbitrators and parties.
• Whether material under the AI Disputes Protective Order may be put into AI tools. The order does not mention them, though it lets protected material go to litigation support services and “professional vendors” (paras 4, 5).
• How often the AI rules have been used. We found no JAMS figures.^2,5,7,19,22