Arbitral institutions ask for clarity on the AI Act

In July 2026, several arbitral institutions, among them the SCC Arbitration Institute, sent the European Commission a joint letter about its draft guidelines on the AI Act. Their question is short and important: when the Act speaks of artificial intelligence used in alternative dispute resolution, who exactly is meant?

The starting point

Annex III of the AI Act lists, among the high-risk systems, those intended to assist judicial authorities, or used in a similar way in alternative dispute resolution. The reason given by the Act is the impact such systems can have on the right to a fair trial and an effective remedy. Arbitration is the obvious place to ask what “in a similar way” means in practice.

What the institutions point out

As reported, the institutions explain that they administer proceedings but do not decide the merits of a dispute. In their view, treating an institution as the body that “uses” an AI system could attach obligations to the wrong actor. They suggest that the high-risk classification should follow the AI system used by, or on behalf of, the tribunal when it acts as adjudicator.

Why it matters in practice

For tribunals, counsel and parties, the answer decides where responsibility sits: with the institution that runs the case, with the arbitrators who decide it, or with the provider of the tool they use. For organisations that build or buy such tools, it decides which obligations apply to which system, and in which role.

What can be done in the meantime

• Keep the decision with the tribunal, and treat artificial intelligence as support, never as a replacement for judgement.
• Record which tools are used in a case, for what, and with what data.
• Agree on the rules for the use of artificial intelligence early in the proceedings. The CIArb guideline, for example, comes with model agreements and procedural orders.
• Have the tools you rely on checked by someone who did not build or sell them.

The letter itself is public: read it here. This article is a short summary for information only, not legal advice, and it should be read together with the final guidance of the Commission once it is published.