USA Law and Practice Contributed by: John Desmond, Alexis Taitel, Alice Samberg, Mackenzie Robinson and Peter Dragovich, Dickinson Wright PLLC
9.3 Length of Time The length of proceedings to confirm an arbitration award will vary significantly from court to court. That said, confirmation proceedings are typically much shorter than the litigation of the underlying claims – consisting only of the prevailing party’s petition to confirm, an opportunity for the non-prevailing party to challenge the confirmation, and, subject to the court’s discretion, a hearing. 9.4 Grounds for Resisting Enforcement A non-prevailing party liable under an arbitration award may challenge its confirmation and subsequent enforcement by moving for a court of proper jurisdic- tion to modify or vacate the award. Refer to the Trends and Developments article of the Chambers Dispute Resolution 2026 Guide for the USA (nationally) for a more in-depth discussion on this point. A foreign judgment is treated differently. Once domesticated through the procedures described in 9.1 Enforcement of Judgments , the foreign judg- ment may be enforced and objected to on the same grounds as a domestic judgment, as dictated by the law of the state in which the foreign judgment was domesticated. At the federal level, there is no overarching legal framework that regulates the use of artificial intelli- gence. However, Congress, the legislative body that makes national law, has passed a few piecemeal laws that target specific usage of artificial intelligence. For example, in 2025, Congress passed the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which criminalises the publication of non-consensual AI-generated explicit images (“deep- fakes”) and requires online platforms to remove such content. Congress has considered, but not effectu- ated into law, the CREATE AI Act, which would codify the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) with the goal of advancing AI discovery and innovation. Addi- tionally, the National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (20 March 2026) advocated for “minimally burdensome” state AI regulation, while preserving cer- 10. Dispute Resolution and AI 10.1 Regulation
tain state authority such as with regards to protecting children and prohibiting fraud. More regulatory activity is happening at the state- level. Some state governments, including those gov- erning California, Nevada, Texas, and Colorado, are spearheading artificial intelligence regulation. These states are passing narrow legislation that focuses on issues such as increasing transparency in AI usage, prohibiting deepfakes, and advancing users’ safety and privacy. No state has yet adopted a comprehen- sive regulatory framework. 10.2 Impact National dispute resolution organisations in the United States, such the AAA and JAMS, have embraced the use of artificial intelligence by third-party neutrals and parties. JAMS has adopted Rules Governing Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems, which applies to arbitral proceedings when the parties agree to its application, or, in the absence of such agreement, when the parties’ disputes or claims are AI-related. The AAA offers the “AI Arbitrator” as a new service. The AAA’s AI Arbitrator is a system into which the par- ties, if they so agree, submit their claims and evidence. Artificial intelligence summarises each party’s claims, analyses supporting evidence, applies governing law, and proposes an award. The recommended award generated by the AI arbitrator is then reviewed by a human arbitrator who reviews and revises the recom- mendation then issues a final, binding award. Sepa- rately, the AAA encourages its third-party neutrals and staff to use artificial intelligence tools to assist in their work, but clarifies that arbitrators cannot del- egate decision-making authority to AI. Overall, dispute resolution organisations appear to embrace the use of artificial intelligence as a tool to assist arbitrators and parties in resolving disputes. 10.3 Future Federal courts, as opposed to dispute resolution organisations, have been slower to embrace the use of artificial intelligence, but recognise it as a trans- formative force in the United States’ federal judicial system. In fact, the Administrative Office of the fed- eral court system has implemented an Artificial Intel- ligence Task Force, which developed interim guidance
553 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook