By Grace Kim

Arbitration clauses are being adapted for AI-related disputes, according to analysis published by Lexology. The report signals a shift already visible in commercial contracting. Practitioners who treat standard arbitration clauses as boilerplate now face a changing drafting environment. The subject matter is technology. The pressure point is contract language.

The trend matters because AI disputes do not look like ordinary commercial disputes. They involve software behavior, data pipelines, model performance, and opaque technical decision-making. Traditional clauses were not built for those questions. Drafters are now revisiting how arbitration agreements should address them.

Why are standard clauses under strain?

Standard arbitration clauses assume disputing parties can identify the facts, the evidence, and the applicable law with reasonable clarity. AI systems complicate each assumption. Models evolve. Training data may sit in multiple jurisdictions. The cause of an alleged failure can be difficult to isolate.

That creates practical problems for arbitrators and counsel:

• Defining what the AI system was supposed to do, and who bears the risk when it does something else
• Allocating responsibility among developers, deployers, and users of the system
• Handling confidential technical material, including source code and training datasets, in disclosure
• Deciding whether an arbitral tribunal has the technical literacy to assess machine behavior

The Lexology analysis describes how parties are adapting clause language to confront these issues directly rather than relying on general provisions.

What changes are drafters making?

According to the report, adaptation is happening at the level of clause design. Parties are moving away from generic dispute-resolution wording toward provisions tailored to the technical character of AI disputes. The direction of travel is clearer than any single model clause.

Several drafting moves recur:

• Specifying arbitration as the preferred forum for AI-related claims, including product liability and IP issues arising from model outputs
• Building in confidentiality protections suited to proprietary models and data
• Addressing the appointment of tribunals with technical expertise, or the use of expert input, where the subject matter demands it
• Clarifying procedural rules for handling evidence produced by or about AI systems

The takeaway: adaptation is pragmatic and clause-by-clause. There is no single standard yet.

What does this change for practitioners?

For transactional lawyers, the message is simple. Review arbitration clauses in any contract involving AI systems with the same care as the commercial terms. A clause that works for a services agreement may fail when the disputed asset is a model, a dataset, or an algorithmic output.

For litigators and arbitration counsel, the changes affect case preparation. Technical evidence will dominate. Confidentiality applications will be more frequent. Tribunal selection may turn on technical competence as much as legal reputation. Counsel who understand both the technology and the arbitral procedure will hold the advantage.

For arbitrators and institutions, the trend raises institutional questions. Rules on disclosure, secrecy, and expert evidence may need refinement as AI claims multiply. Institutions that offer specialized panels or procedural guidance will attract this docket.

The practical consequence in plain terms: the clause you draft today shapes how an AI dispute will be fought tomorrow, and generic wording is becoming a liability.

What should counsel do now?

The Lexology analysis suggests the adaptation is ongoing rather than complete. Practitioners should therefore treat current drafting as a moving target. Monitor how tribunals handle early AI disputes. Track institutional rule changes. Adjust templates as practice develops.

Three immediate steps follow from the reported trend:

1. Audit existing arbitration clauses in AI contracts for gaps on expertise, confidentiality, and evidence
2. Negotiate tailored provisions at drafting stage rather than lititating procedural disputes later
3. Prepare for technically complex evidentiary proceedings, including expert-heavy presentations

The one-sentence takeaway: AI disputes are pushing arbitration clauses from boilerplate to bespoke, and counsel who wait for a settled standard will draft from behind.