EU AI Act raises accountability questions for arbitration

The EU AI Act’s draft high-risk guidelines could bring some arbitration-related AI tools within rules for the administration of justice and ADR. The framework treats systems used to research facts and law, apply law to concrete facts, or help draft decisions as potentially high-risk when the outcome has legal effects, while excluding ancillary tools such as speech-to-text, case assignment, communication support, evidence management and language editing.

Leading arbitration institutions including ICC, ICDR/AAA, ICSID, LCIA, CIArb and the SCC Arbitration Institute warned the European Commission that the draft may attach obligations to arbitral institutions even though tribunals decide merits and issue awards. They argue administrative bodies should be treated like judicial administration, which the draft places outside scope, and that accountability for AI-assisted decision-making should follow the adjudicative function.

The uncertainty matters for institutions, arbitrators and technology providers. If the Commission keeps the draft approach, EU-connected proceedings may face higher compliance complexity and costs, especially where institutions or arbitrators use AI to research, reason through or draft decisions. Tools such as the AAA’s AI Arbitrator highlight the unresolved boundary between administrative support and systems that contribute to legal reasoning or award preparation.