No Industry Seems Untouched by the AI Avalanche – Where Does AI Stand With ADR? Or Better Asked, Where Does ADR Stand With AI?

February 25, 2026

Screenshot from AAA AI Arbitrator Website

By Marina Rastorfer

Most discourses, no matter the field of interest, tend to have a catchphrase or a keyword that routinely gets applied – ‘human-centered’ seems to be the en vogue term circulating the discussions on AI and its use across different vocations. Particularly with regard to the use of AI and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), an emphasis is made by numerous institutions to communicate with the public that the AI tools being used are not without human oversight. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) is no different and as a leading figure in the field of ADR and, recently, AI, the AAA and the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) rolled-out the ‘AI arbitrator’ in November, 2025.^[1] Limited to construction cases for now, the implementation of AAA’s AI tool does beg the question of whether this tool will be used in other fields beyond construction such as art law disputes and, if so, will other ADR institutions follow suit?

Art law disputes already have an ADR bandwagon for settling claims outside of litigation in favor of more adaptable, cost-efficient, time-saving, and tailored resolution mechanisms that allow for different claimants to be heard who may be barred from litigating their claims due to procedural limitations. Now, whether these complementary sounding adjectives are realized in ADR resolutions is another topic on its own. However, the premise remains, if ADR mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration are in fact in common usage for art law disputes, is it a given that AI tools will soon be, or have to be, integrated given the general direction that AI usage is taking in the field of ADR and beyond?

Posing larger than life rhetorical questions on subject matters that remain undefined, unlimited, and largely, unclear, is easier than finding answers to the questions if they in fact exist. The goal of this article is to begin envisioning the use of current ADR AI tools, such as AAA’s AI arbitrator, in art law disputes and to, hopefully without pontificating, examine the individualistic features of art law claims and how they may, or may not, be addressed through the use of AI in ADR procedures.

AAA’s AI Arbitrator as Case Study

The process itself sounds simple: 1) parties submit their claims and evidence, 2) parties validate that the AI arbitrator has correctly summarized what they have submitted, 3) the AI arbitrator goes through the claims, analyzes the evidence, applies law, and drafts a proposed award with citations, and 4) An AAA human arbitrator reviews, revises, finalizes, and issues the award.^[2] Questions? Most likely. The AAA’s website provides first and foremost in their FAQs that every case has a human arbitrator under a “human-in-the-loop” structure.^[3] Additionally, participation remains optional where both parties must agree to the use of the AI arbitrator. As of yet, the tool has been limited to construction cases alone where no live witnesses are needed (i.e., documents-only) and where speed and efficiency is vital.^[4] According to the AAA, the tool is “not yet” suitable for complex and subjective cases, however, as the technology matures the intention is to possibly expand to other case types.^[5]

In addition to having an AAA human arbitrator review the AI proposed awards, the data on which the AI works is itself not based on generic legal text but on real AAA construction awards and refined by AAA human arbitrators’ logic and legal reasoning (i.e., human calibration) so as to provide expertise and confidentiality.^[6] Lastly, for this brief summation, the AAA maintains a dedicated AI Governance Committee which oversees compliance, ethics, and model outputs.^[7]

President and CEO of AAA-ICDR, Bridget Mary McCormack, commented in an interview on how to bridge human and AI tools in ADR.^[8] With regard to the AI arbitrator, McCormack stated that the tool is an effort to give more options to more people through cost and time efficient means and to make people feel heard and understood.^[9] McCormack went on to say that the AI arbitrator, in part, is being tested on construction cases due to the AAA’s vast experience on construction disputes for the AI model to access and the simplicity of having no testimony required.^[10] In McCormack’s view, AI will not replace neutrals like arbitrators, but in fact increase the need for them, as people continue to find comfort in knowing that a human is part of the process and that neutrals will, and should, use AI as a helpful tool.^[11] Among potential future endeavors, McCormack hinted at the use of AI tools in Early Dispute Resolution (EDR) in response, in part, to a lot of incoming requests – listeners are told to “stay tuned[.]”^[12]

ADR’s Popularity in Art Law Disputes

Defining what art law disputes are, demonstrates the diversity of disputes that can arise under this heading. Topics range from restitution claims, intellectual property (IP) rights, authentications, artists’ rights, loan agreements, chain of title disputes, insurance agreements, auctions, and sales among others. Arbitration proceedings, and ADR processes in general, have been on the rise for art law specific disputes given the frequent need for expertise in the subject matters at hand.^[13] In 2018, the Center of Arbitration for Art (CAfA), in the Netherlands, was established as the first tribunal dealing exclusively in resolving art disputes. The creation of CAfA was, in large part, due to the infamous The Plough forgeries case which was the longest litigated case in art law.^[14] For many, this case showed the flaws in the justice system when dealing with art law disputes – in this instance, lack of expertise and guidelines in authenticating works of art and presenting expert evidence in court.^[15]

As the list at the outset of the above paragraph suggests, the diverse types of art law disputes inevitably mean that diverse parties are involved such as auction houses, collectors, art dealers, artists, cultural institutions, indigenous communities, and both domestic and international states. The international and cross-border nature of many art law disputes in particular are what often warrant the use of ADR as opposed to court litigation.^[16] When multiple jurisdictions are involved, ADR procedures can avoid the potential difficulties of multi-jurisdictional litigation and can resolve the dispute in a single procedure.^[17] Another commonly cited advantage of ADR procedures for art law disputes, is the ability of parties to choose their own neutrals with the needed expertise for the dispute at hand.^[18] One of the key considerations that members cherish, for numerous reasons, is confidentiality.^[19] ADR procedures can provide this opportunity through its proceedings as opposed to public records in litigation depending on the institution’s guidelines and the parties’ agreement. Lastly, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, difference between ADR procedures and litigation is the ability to choose interest-based solutions that are tailored to the needs of the parties that go beyond the traditional monetary damages offered by courts.^[20] Whether the issues are legal or non-legal in nature, often parties seeking remedies are looking for more than monetary compensation and instead seek other forms of relief such as formal apologies or public recognition outside the judicial system. Similarly, non-claimants may offer remedies that allow for more creative and sustainable solutions such as long-term loans or co-ownership.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Switzerland, is one of the leading providers in dispute resolution advice and case administration for disputes arising in art and cultural heritage.^[21] With no involvement of courts, the WIPO resolves disputes including IP rights, issues of authenticity, and cultural property.^[22] Included in these disputes are non-legal issues such as ethical, historical, moral, and religious aspects which often encompass different jurisdictions and cultures.^[23] A neutral forum is provided where parties can choose their own experts from a selection of international neutrals depending on the dispute at hand and where international issues can be resolved and heard in one procedure.^[24]

Data published by WIPO, showcases a record demand for WIPO out-of-court IP disputes resolution services in 2025.^[25] In fact, the data shows a 70% increase from 2024 in IP disputes resolution supported by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO AMC), an 87% increase in WIPO’s Co-Administration Program, and a 42% increase in cases administered under the WIPO Mediation and Arbitration Rules.^[26] The types of art law disputes settled under WIPO AMC go beyond strictly IP related cases, for example, a settlement between an European gallery and artist who had a WIPO arbitration clause in their contract.^[27] In that dispute, the contractual working relationship was initially instigated to promote the artist in the international art market.^[28] However, after the parties’ relations began to deteriorate, a selected three-panel tribunal of experienced arbitrators in this type of art law dispute, reached a tailored settlement where the parties agreed, in part, to terminate both the cooperation agreement and a provision for some of the artist’s works given to the gallery – a consent award was rendered.^[29]

The Future of AI Tools in Art Law Disputes Seeking Resolutions Through ADR

At the 2025 Future Dispute Resolution (FDR) Conference series in New York, convened by the AAA and the ICDR, leading professionals in the field discussed how AI is redefining dispute resolution.^[30] Notably, panelists emphasized once more the need for manual human revisions of AI produced work by applying the core set of duties that neutrals hold – diligence, competence, candor, and confidentiality.^[31] Furthermore, the caution of applying AI tools to ADR disputes that go beyond documents-only and lower-value disputes resonated throughout.^[32] Panelists overall deemed the use of AI for complex and high-stake matters unlikely where live hearings are needed with deliberations and the ability to “read the room” is essential.^[33]

One of the key attributes to ADR processes is the building of trust between neutrals and parties involved. Seen as a central challenge for AI use in law, the FDR Conference panelists emphasized the need for transparency, safety, and human oversight in order to allow technology to be credible in high-stakes legal work.^[34] When looking at art law claims and the wide breadth of claims that can arise under this classification, the potential dangers of AI tools creep up once more.

Taking as a hypothetical, from a list of many art law disputes as evidenced above, a claimant seeking on behalf of their great-grandparent the restitution of a family heirloom that was stolen by the National Socialists (NS) in Nazi-Germany – would they feel confident and trust an AI tool (with a human neutral’s supervision) to fully understand the gravitas of the claim? Should such matters even be fed into an AI tool to begin with or are some disputes simply too enshrined in the intricacies of human nature and its flaws to be analyze like any other piece of data? No doubt, part of the answers will lie in what kind of database will be created on which the AI tool is trained and used. Given the multi-disciplinary nature of such a claim (as with many other art disputes,) the database would need to have access to countless different data including provenance databases, international institutions including museums and commissions (just to name a few,) historical records including ancestries, and art historical databases including image files of artworks and many more. The extent of the tool being used, whether it would be the primary mechanism to settle the dispute or whether it would be an additional research tool used by a human neutral, would also be paramount to define at the outset.

Is such a proposition realistic? Perhaps. Is it useful? Perhaps. Is it necessary? In fear of sounding redundant, perhaps. Sometimes the benefits of money and time saving may simply not outweigh the costs, but who is to make that judgement when the direction of society is moving more and more towards efficiency and aggregation and who would decide which types of art law disputes would fall on opposite sides of any hypothetical line being drawn on where ethical considerations require a human versus AI. Maybe the answer really lies in finding a balance for the use of both. Time will tell.

Suggested Readings

McKinsey & Company, McKinsey helps pioneer an AI-native approach in dispute resolution, (Sep. 17, 2025), https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/new-at-mckinsey-blog/mckinsey-helps-pioneer-an-ai-native-approach-in-dispute-resolution.

Oliver Tapper et. al., Arbitration of art disputes, Global Arbitration Review (Apr. 30, 2025), https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-high-net-worth-clients-and-arbitration/first-edition/article/arbitration-of-art-disputes.

World Intell. Prop. Org., WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/background.html, last visited on Feb. 1, 2026.

About the Author

Marina Rastorfer is a Spring 2026 Legal Intern at the Center for Art Law while completing her LL.M. in Dispute Resolution Advocacy at Cardozo Law. Marina graduated from Columbia University in 2020 with a M.A. in Art History after which she attended law school at GW Law where she focused her J.D. on Art Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution. It is at the junction of Art History, Art Law, and Alternative Dispute Resolution where Marina aims to continue expanding her knowledge and to dedicate her profession.

Select References

1. Am. Arb. Ass’n, AI Arbitrator, https://www.adr.org/ai-arbitrator/, last visited on Feb. 1, 2026. ↑
2. Am. Arb. Ass’n, Your Questions Answered About the AAA AI Arbitrator, https://www.adr.org/news-and-insights/ai-arbitrator-faq/, last visited on Feb. 1, 2026. ↑
3. Id. ↑
4. Id. ↑
5. Id. ↑
6. Am. Arb. Ass’n, AI Arbitrator A New Path to Dispute Resolution, https://inns.innsofcourt.org/media/201494/ai-arbitrator-one-sheet-20251008.pdf, last visited on Feb. 1, 2026. ↑
7. Id. ↑
8. Aaron Gothelf et al., AAA’s AI Arbitrator: Bridging Human and Machine, SciTech Lawyer Perspective (Am. Bar Ass’n, Dec. 3, 2025), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resources/podcast/aaas-ai-arbitrator-bridging-human-machine/. ↑
9. Id. ↑
10. Id. ↑
11. Id. ↑
12. Id. ↑
13. Aceris Law LLC, Arbitration and Art Disputes, (Jun. 25, 2023), https://www.acerislaw.com/arbitration-and-art-disputes/. ↑
14. Mihaela Tarnovschi, The Court of Arbitration for Art (CAfA), Arbitras The Hague (Aug. 21, 2020), https://www.arbitras.org/blog/2020/8/21/the-court-of-arbitration-for-art-cafa. ↑
15. Id. ↑
16. Stephan den Hartog, The Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Art Related Disputes, Kluwer Arbitration Blog (Oct. 23, 2015), https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/the-use-of-alternative-dispute-resolution-in-art-related-disputes/. ↑
17. Id. ↑
18. Id. ↑
19. Id. ↑
20. Id. ↑
21. World Intell. Prop. Org., WIPO Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for Art and Cultural Heritage, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art/, last visited on Feb. 1, 2026. ↑
22. Id. ↑
23. Id. ↑
24. Id. ↑
25. World Intell. Prop. Org., WIPO ADR Highlights 2025, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/center/summary2025.html, last visited on Feb. 1, 2026. ↑
26. Id. ↑
27. World Intell. Prop. Org., WIPO Arbitration Case Examples, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/case-example.html, last visited on Feb. 1, 2026. ↑
28. Id. ↑
29. Id. ↑
30. Am. Arb. Ass’n, The Dispute Revolution: How AI is Rewriting the Rules of ADR, https://go.adr.org/rs/294-SFS-516/images/2025_Future_Dispute_Resolution_Conference_Report.pdf, last visited on Feb. 1, 2026. ↑
31. Id. at 4. ↑
32. Id. at 6. ↑
33. Id. ↑
34. Id. at 10. ↑