The JAMS Artificial Intelligence Dispute Resolution Rules (AI Rules) are a crucial update of arbitration processes for modern technology. These rules streamline the resolution process and reduce the time and cost associated with resolving disputes. The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on society is evident, yet the extent of its influence remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that AI-driven disputes will only increase in the coming years. These disputes will involve a wide range of conflicts from data privacy breaches, intellectual property infringement, unauthorized synthetic content, and trade secret misappropriation involving large language models (LLMs), to breach of contract. As it stands, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) today is largely ill-equipped to handle these types of disputes; in recognition of this, I, along with Dr. Ryan Abbott, worked closely with JAMS to develop JAMS Artificial Intelligence Dispute Resolution Rules (AI Rules). “JAMS Rules Governing Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems, effective April 15, 2024,” www. jamsadr.com/rules-clauses/ artificial-intelligence-disputes?clause-and-rules.

At a high level, the AI Rules establish that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, JAMS will propose arbitrator candidates with AI knowledge (Rule 15(b)), mandate a protective order by default to secure sensitive information and stringent data handling during disputes (Rule 16.1(a)), and limit expert testimony to written reports and directed oral responses to maintain focus and confidentiality throughout the arbitration process (Rule 16.1(b)). The net effect of the AI Rules is that they streamline the resolution process and reduce the time and cost associated with resolving AI disputes.

ARBITRATOR SELECTION Rule 15(b) of the AI Rules provides that “JAMS shall propose, subject to availability, only panelists approved by JAMS for evaluating disputes involving technical subject matter with appropriate background and experience. JAMS shall also provide each party with a brief description of the background and experience of each Arbitrator candidate.” Id. at 15(b). This prerequisite helps to alleviate parties expending substantial resources educating the arbitrator on the technical aspects underpinning the dispute and that the arbitrator will be capable of adjudicating appropriately. For example, in a dispute concerning the execution of a funding agreement, the main issue is the alleged misrepresentation of a company’s machine learning algorithms’ capabilities and performance metrics, which were crucial in securing the funding. The Arbitrator should possess knowledge of AI to adequately understand the technical nuances of the case.