How to use this page
Use this resource page when you need to:
- verify a claim before drafting or publishing,
- understand which institution or regulator matters for a specific problem,
- find primary sources on AI arbitration, evidence, confidentiality, privacy, employment, or consumer risk,
This is a curated reference page, not a substitute for legal advice.
Start here: sherafy.com section entry points
If you are new to the section, begin with these Sherafy pages:
- AI Dispute Resolution
- AI Arbitration
- AI Arbitration Clause
- AI Evidence in Arbitration
- California AI Arbitration
These are the best first stops before moving into narrower sources.
1. Core arbitration and institutional sources
These are the most important formal or quasi-formal sources for AI-related arbitration procedure.
JAMS Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause and Rules
Link: https://www.jamsadr.com/artificial-intelligence-disputes-clause-and-rules
Use it for:
- AI-specific dispute clauses,
- forum design,
- procedural expectations,
- and drafting around technical evidence and emergency relief.
Why it matters:
This is one of the clearest institution-specific anchors for AI-related arbitration.
AAA-ICDR Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools
Link: https://www.adr.org/media/g1fgccns/2025_aaa-icdr-guidance-on-arbitrators-use-of-ai-tools-2.pdf
Use it for:
- arbitrator tool-use ethics,
- disclosure questions,
- confidentiality concerns,
- and independent judgment boundaries.
Why it matters:
It is one of the most direct official guidance documents on how arbitrators should think about AI tool use.
Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration
Link: https://www.ciarb.org/media/bpndtcgu/guideline-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration_updated-sept-2025.pdf
Use it for:
- broader procedural framing,
- party and representative obligations,
- template language,
- and international perspective.
Why it matters:
It extends the conversation beyond arbitrators alone and is especially useful for process design.
2. California dispute and privacy sources
California is one of the most important jurisdictions for AI dispute risk. These are the California sources worth checking first.
California Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators
Link: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ethics
Use it for:
- disclosure,
- impartiality,
- confidentiality,
- and California arbitration conduct baselines.
Why it matters:
Even without AI-specific California arbitrator rules, these standards are central to California process credibility.
CPPA regulations page
Link: https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/
Use it for:
- CCPA regulatory materials,
- ADMT rules,
- risk assessments,
- cybersecurity audit requirements,
- and implementation dates.
Why it matters:
Many California AI disputes will turn on privacy and automated decisionmaking practices rather than only on contract language.
California DOJ privacy enforcement actions
Link: https://oag.ca.gov/node/44568
Use it for:
- enforcement examples,
- settlement patterns,
- and practical signals about what California is prioritizing.
Why it matters:
Enforcement posture often tells you more about live risk than abstract policy discussion.
California AI legislation sources
Useful links:
- AB 2013 training data transparency: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2013
- SB 942 California AI Transparency Act: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB942
Use them for:
- training-data transparency,
- synthetic media provenance and disclosure,
- and California-specific statutory hooks for AI disputes.
3. Federal regulator sources
These are essential when the dispute touches consumer protection, employment, or public-facing representations.
FTC AI business guidance
Link: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/guidance-artificial-intelligence
Use it for:
- deceptive AI claims,
- product marketing risk,
- synthetic media issues,
- and current FTC materials on AI-related business conduct.
EEOC AI page
Link: https://www.eeoc.gov/ai
Use it for:
- employment discrimination issues,
- disability accommodation questions,
- and AI-related workplace guidance.
CFPB chatbot and automated-consumer-interaction resources
Start here:
Use it for:
- inaccurate chatbot outputs,
- consumer recourse problems,
- and automated customer-service risk.
Why it matters:
Even if the business is not in financial services, this is one of the clearest regulator discussions of chatbot harm.
4. Technical standards and risk-management sources
These are especially helpful when the dispute involves evidence quality, governance, or explainability limits.
NIST AI Risk Management Framework
Link: https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
Use it for:
- governance structure,
- risk framing,
- and vocabulary that works across legal and technical teams.
NIST Generative AI Profile
Link: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1
Use it for:
- generative AI-specific risk patterns,
- hallucination or confabulation framing,
- and more precise thinking about system limitations.
NIST GenAI evaluation work
Link: https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/generative-artificial-intelligence-evaluation-program-genai
Use it for:
- evaluation methods,
- measurement mindset,
- and emerging ways to think about reliability.
5. Practical source-to-page map
If you are updating a specific Sherafy page, use this shortcut:
AI Arbitration-> JAMS, AAA-ICDR, CiarbAI Arbitrator Ethics-> AAA-ICDR, Ciarb, California ethics standardsAI Evidence in Arbitration-> NIST, Ciarb, California privacy sourcesAI Consumer Disputes-> FTC, CFPB, CPPA, DOJAI Employment Disputes-> EEOC, California labor- and workforce-related sourcesCalifornia AI Arbitration-> CPPA, DOJ, California courts, California legislationHallucination and Reliance Disputes-> NIST, FTC, CFPB
That source discipline is part of what makes an authority site feel authoritative.
6. What this page should become over time
This resource page should not stay static.
Over time, it should become:
- the default outbound-link hub for the whole section,
- a launch point for refresh work,
- a citation bank for new Sherafy pages,
- and a trust signal showing that the site is built on primary sources rather than recycled summaries.
FAQ
Why focus on official and institutional sources?
Because AI dispute resolution is still evolving fast, and primary sources reduce the risk of repeating stale or distorted summaries.
What is the most important source set for this topic?
There is no single source set. The strongest combination usually includes institutional ADR materials, California privacy and enforcement sources, federal regulator guidance, and NIST standards.
Why include technical standards on a legal dispute site?
Because many AI disputes are really disputes about governance, evidence, measurement, and system behavior. Legal analysis without technical framing is often too thin.
Further Reading
- JAMS Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause and Rules: https://www.jamsadr.com/artificial-intelligence-disputes-clause-and-rules
- AAA-ICDR Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools, March 2025: https://www.adr.org/media/g1fgccns/2025_aaa-icdr-guidance-on-arbitrators-use-of-ai-tools-2.pdf
- Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration, updated September 2025: https://www.ciarb.org/media/bpndtcgu/guideline-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration_updated-sept-2025.pdf
- California Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ethics
- CPPA regulations page: https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/
- California DOJ privacy enforcement actions page: https://oag.ca.gov/node/44568
- EEOC AI page: https://www.eeoc.gov/ai
- FTC AI business guidance page: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/guidance-artificial-intelligence
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework page: https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
