Richmond Journal of Law and Technology

Apple Vision Pro: Can it See China?

On November 13, 2023

Apple Vision Pro: Can it See China?

By Jarrid Outlaw

Apple is slated to release their next big market product the “Apple Vision Pro” early next year.[1] The vision pro is an augmented reality (AR) headset that also acts as a standalone computer.[2] Apple proclaims this product to be the first “spatial computer.”[3] It combines everyday apps we use on our phones and computers and projects them as an interactive canvas, while still allowing the user freedom to see the environment around them.[4] It also connects with MacBooks, allows you to make the canvas as big and small as you want, has state of the art resolution, and works as a standalone computer.[5] Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, had this to say, “Apple Vision Pro introduces us to spatial computing. Built upon decades of Apple innovation, Vision Pro is years ahead and unlike anything created before — with a revolutionary new input system and thousands of groundbreaking innovations. It unlocks incredible experiences for our users and exciting new opportunities for our developers.”[6] Though Apple has come up with numerous new and exciting technological innovations, they will have a hard time in the global market due to China’s trademark law.[7]

Deepfakes: Navigating Legal Challenges

By JOLT

On November 6, 2023

In Blog Posts

Deepfakes: Navigating Legal Challenges

By Moses Hutchinson

Imagine a courtroom where the authenticity of every audio and video recording is suspect. Deepfakes force the legal field to grapple with a fundamental question: can our courts adapt to this new reality.

Can Artificial Intelligence Platforms be Held Liable for Defamation?

By JOLT

On October 30, 2023

In Blog Posts

Can Artificial Intelligence Platforms be Held Liable for Defamation?

By: Sydney Coker

On May 4, 2023, journalist Fred Riehl was conducting research on a lawsuit, The Second Amendment Foundation v. Robert Ferguson, using an artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT.[1] In his interaction with ChatGPT, Riehl provided the URL of a link to the complaint filed by The Second Amendment Foundation and asked ChatGPT to provide “a summary of the accusations in the complaint.”[2] In response, the chatbot produced a number of false allegations claimed to be made by the Second Amendment Foundation against Mark Walters, an individual who is neither a plaintiff nor defendant in the lawsuit.[3]

The Irish Tech Boom: a Jammy Success or a Banjaxed System?

By JOLT

On October 27, 2023

In Blog Posts

The Irish Tech Boom: a Jammy Success or a Banjaxed System?

By Avery S. Younis

Once home to the “Double Irish” tax loophole, Ireland houses well over 100,000 information, communication, and technology professionals.[1] Over the past two decades, the country has seen a drastic increase in U.S. tech-based companies moving operations to its country.[2] The biggest companies include Apple, Microsoft, Meta Platforms, Alphabet’s Google, X (Twitter), and Amazon.com.[3] Dublin alone is an international tech hub with companies such as TikTok, Zoom Video Communications, ServiceNow, Datadog, Toast, and 2K.[4]

Tattoos, 2K, and the Future of Copyright Law

By JOLT

On October 25, 2023

In Blog Posts

By Eleni Paraskevopoulos

For those unfamiliar with the video game franchise, NBA 2K, named 2023’s most popular video game in the U.S., is a series of basketball simulation video games designed to emulate the NBA where basketball enthusiasts can fulfill their NBA dreams by playing as NBA players of both the past and present.[1] A major feature of 2K is the increasingly accurate likeness of NBA players in the playable avatars.[2] In order for there to be optimal likeness, all aspects of players should be accurately represented: from an individual’s height to their eye color to even their tattoos. Tattoos are becoming more important especially when given that as of 2020, an estimated 56% of NBA players have tattoos.[3] So what happens when the tattoo art being reproduced in a 2K, is done so without the permission of the artist and copyright holder?

George R.R. Martin Won’t Bend the Knee – Chat GPT, Generative AI, and the Fine Line Between Fair Use and Copyright Infringement

By JOLT

On October 20, 2023

In Blog Posts

By Perla Khattar[1]

On September 19, 2023, George R.R. Martin and other professional fiction writers filed a class action lawsuit against OpenAI in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs alleged that at the heart of Large Language Models (LLMs) exists “systematic theft on a mass scale.”[2] In their complaint, the plaintiffs explained that OpenAI, the maker of the LLM ChatGPT, copied their copyrighted works of fiction without permission and fed the data into LLMs that are carefully programmed to “output human-seeming text responses to users’ prompts and queries.”[3] The authors allege that OpenAI downloaded the manuscripts from pirated eBooks repositories.[4]

Why the Trial of Sam Bankman-Fried is Really a Trial about the Current and Future state of Crypto

By JOLT

On October 17, 2023

In Blog Posts

By Kimberly Lo[1]

While the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried officially kicked off last week in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan, the unofficial trial over the current and future state of crypto was already well underway.[2] The overwhelming consensus is that there is more at stake than whether or not Bankman-Fried will be found guilty on the seven criminal charges he faces.[3] Rather, many view it as the entire cryptocurrency industry on trial. [4]

Virginia’s Online Age Verification Law: Can it Withstand Constitutional Challenges?

By JOLT

On October 10, 2023

In Blog Posts

By Jay Hale

On June 15, 2022, Louisiana broke new ground by enacting a law that creates civil liability for commercial entities whose websites contain more than 33.3% of material deemed harmful to minors.[1] This liability comes into play if minors gain access to such content, and the entity fails to implement reasonable age verification methods on its website.[2] These methods can range from digital ID cards to government-issued identification or any commercially viable approach that relies on public or private transactional data to confirm a user’s age.[3]

After Louisiana’s bold move in introducing this age verification law, several other states quickly passed similar legislation.[4] Virginia was among these states, enacting its own age verification law on May 12, 2023.[5] In this article, I will delve into recent challenges faced by similar laws in Utah and Texas, shedding light on potential challenges that Virginia’s age verification law might encounter.

Utah:

Utah made headlines with the passage of SB 287, known as the “Online Pornography Viewing Age Requirements” law. This legislation aimed to compel adult content websites to implement age verification systems, ensuring that individuals had reached the legal age before accessing explicit material.[6] However, this law quickly found itself in the crosshairs of legal challenges by the adult entertainment industry.[7]

In response to SB 287, Pornhub took the drastic step of blocking Utah-based internet connection access to all of its content.[8] The porn site xHampster attempted to comply with the new law by using a service called Yoti, a system that estimates a user’s age through selfies without storing personal data.[9] Interestingly, when Pornhub closed its doors to Utah users, there was a notable surge in VPN downloads across the state.[10] This raises legitimate concerns that websites like Pornhub might still face liability if minors in Utah use VPNs to gain access to sensitive material.[11]

One of the most significant challenges to Utah’s new age verification law was presented in the case of Free Speech Coalition v. Anderson. In this case, the plaintiffs contended that SB 287 was unconstitutional.[12] They sought to enjoin the Commissioner of Utah’s Department of Public Safety from permitting the download of its data files for use in the age verification process.[13] Their argument revolved around the law’s alleged impermissible vagueness, which they believed violated the due process clause of the Constitution.[14] Additionally, they argued that SB 287 placed a substantial burden on interstate commerce by restricting the ability of online content providers to reach Utah residents.[15] Furthermore, the law was criticized for imposing a content-based restriction on protected speech without effectively achieving the State’s goal of protecting minors from harmful material that is readily available elsewhere.[16]

The defendants in this case sought to have it dismissed, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction under the 11th Amendment, which typically prevents citizens from suing their own state in Federal Court.[17] This rule also extends to lawsuits against state officials acting in their official capacity.[18] However, there is an exception known as Ex parte Young which allows plaintiffs to sue state officials if the state official has a duty to enforce the statute in question.[19] In this case, the plaintiffs couldn’t use the Ex parte Young exception against the Attorney General because the law in question allowed private individuals, not state actors, to enforce it.[20] The Attorney General’s general duty to enforce the law didn’t qualify for the exception.[21] The same went for Commissioner Anderson, who oversaw a program related to driver’s licenses but lacked the online infrastructure needed for age verification.[22] Due to this, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter.[23]

While the case was ultimately dismissed, it sheds light on the challenges potential plaintiffs in Virginia might face when attempting to sue the state over its age verification law. Much like Utah, Virginia empowers private individuals to sue commercial entities for violating the law.[24] Consequently, it’s highly likely that a Virginia plaintiff would be unsuccessful in suing state officials on the grounds of the law’s unconstitutionality.

However, there remains a glimmer of hope for the adult entertainment industry in their battle against these laws. InFree Speech Coalition v. Anderson, the Judge’s opinion included a statement that offered some solace: “It may be of little succor to Plaintiffs, but any commercial entity sued under SB 287 may pursue state and federal constitutional arguments in his or her defense. They just cannot receive a pre-enforcement injunction…”[25]

The path forward suggests that until a commercial entity faces legal action under the age verification laws of each state, Utah and Virginia will have to wait to determine whether their respective age verification laws are indeed constitutional. A recent case in Texas, however, provides a hint that these age verification laws will continue to face significant constitutional challenges.

Texas:

Texas’ law sets itself apart from Utah and Virginia’s age verification laws in a significant way. While these states empower private individuals to bring claims against entities failing to comply with age verification requirements, Texas takes it a step further. It grants its Attorney General the authority to take legal action against online entities knowingly flouting the state’s age verification law.[26]

A pivotal case that exemplifies the clash over Texas’s age verification law is Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Colmenero. This legal battle played out in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Here, the Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, a maneuver aimed at halting the enforcement of the age verification bill.[27]

What made this case particularly noteworthy was the Court’s determination of its jurisdiction. It determined that the Ex parte Young exception was present.[28] In this instance, the Attorney General’s involvement with the enforcement of the age verification law provided the necessary connection for the Court to assert jurisdiction.[29]

Furthermore, the Court determined that Texas’s age verification law violates the first amendment of the Constitution. Although the Judge acknowledged the consensus that pornography is inappropriate for children, Texas fell short in demonstrating that its law was narrowly tailored to the purpose of safeguarding minors.[30] The law also appears to unfairly target websites such as Pornhub while overlooking websites like Reddit, where pornography is prevalent but doesn’t make up over a third of its total content.[31]

As the law regulates speech, encompassing content deserving of First Amendment protection, it must survive strict scrutiny, meeting three critical criteria: (1) serve a compelling government interest, (2) be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and (3) be the least restrictive means of advancing it.[32] While a compelling state interest does exist in this context, the law falters in the realm of narrow tailoring.[33] It only applies to a subset of pornographic websites that are subject to the personal jurisdiction of Texas, failing to encompass many foreign websites beyond its reach.[34] Consequently, the law lacks a valid enforcement mechanism, permitting minors to access potentially explicit content from foreign sites with no ties to the United States.[35] Additionally, the law is overly broad and restrictive. It deters adult’s access to legal, sexually explicit material, well beyond the scope of protecting minors.[36]

The Court’s ruling highlighted how the law would deter many adults from engaging with the restricted content out of reluctance to disclose their identification information, fearing that it might be collected and stored.[37] The requirement for adults to actively identify themselves before accessing such material creates a chilling effect on their ability to access protected speech.[38]

Conclusion:

In summary, Utah and Texas serve as intriguing precursors for the constitutionality of Virginia’s age verification law. While Utah’s legal battle highlighted the challenges for plaintiffs in states where only private individuals can sue, Virginia seems poised for a similar scenario. In contrast, Texas, with its unique approach granting its Attorney General enforcement powers, sparked a constitutional clash that questioned the law’s narrow tailoring and potential chilling effect on adult access to explicit content.

As these age verification laws evolve, they foreshadow a future filled with legal battles and constitutional scrutiny, with the adult entertainment industry at the forefront of the fight to protect its interests and free expression rights.

^[1] H.R. 142, 2022 Reg. Sess. (Va. 2023), http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1249878.

^[2] Id.

^[3] Id.

^[4] Sara Cline & Kevin McGill, Adult entertainment group sues Louisiana over age-verification law for porn, AP News (June 22, 2023, 5:31 PM), https://apnews.com/article/porn-lawsuit-age-verification-louisiana-65c5ff6c6e15c8c95f73e81e3dc0a65e.

^[5] H.R. 142, 2022 Reg. Sess. (Va. 2023).

^[6] Ben Winslow, Pornhub blocks Utah in protest of new age-verification law, Fox 13 News Utah (May 1, 2023, 2:30 PM), https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/pornhub-blocks-utah-in-protest-of-new-age-verification-law

^[7] Christopher Brown, Adult-Industry Group Challenges Utah Online Age Verification Law, Bloomberg Law (May 5, 2023, 2:03 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/utah-age-minimum-website-law-challenged-by-adult-industry-group.

^[8] Skye Witley & Andrea Vittorio, Porn Site Pushback on Utah Law Foreshadows More Age-Check Fights, Bloomberg Law (May 12, 2023, 5:10 AM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/porn-site-pushback-on-utah-law-foreshadows-more-age-check-fights.

^[9]Id.

^[10] Christiano Lima & David DiMolfetta, Utah’s porn crackdown has a VPN problem, The Washington Post (May 5, 2023, 9:05 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/05/utahs-porn-crackdown-has-vpn-problem/.

^[11] Id.

^[12] Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Anderson, No. 2:23-CV-287 TS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134645 (D. Utah Aug. 1, 2023).

^[13] Id.

^[14] Id.

^[15] Id.

^[16] Brown, supra note 7.

^[17] Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Anderson, No. 2:23-CV-287 TS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134645 (D. Utah Aug. 1, 2023).

^[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] H.R. 142, 2022 Reg. Sess. (Va. 2023).

[25] Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Anderson, No. 2:23-CV-287 TS, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134645 (D. Utah Aug. 1, 2023).

[26] H.B. 1181, 88th Leg., Reg. Sess. (2023), https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB01181F.pdf#navpanes=0.

[27] Amanda Silberling, Texas cannot yet enforce ID checks on porn sites, TechCrunch (Aug. 31, 2023, 4:23 PM), https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/31/texas-cannot-yet-enforce-id-checks-on-porn-sites/.

[28] Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Colmenero, No. 1:23-CV-917-DAE, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154065 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2023).

[29] Id.

[30] Andrea Vittorio, Porn Industry Group Wins Pause of Texas Online Age Check Law, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 31, 2023, 5:32 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/porn-industry-group-stops-texas-from-implementing-age-check-law.

[31] Id.

[32] Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Colmenero, No. 1:23-CV-917-DAE, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154065 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2023).

[33] Id.

[34] Id.

[35] Id.

[36] Id.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

Image Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/FGH69mi53Mw

The Impact of AI Tools on The Arbitration Process

By JOLT

On October 6, 2023

In Blog Posts

By: Layan Al Fatayri[1]

As new AI tools develop in the area of law, particularly in the domain of arbitration, it becomes more essential for arbitrators to be up to date on the newest technological developments that are rapidly gaining recognition.[2] ChatGPT is an example of a technology that has gained popularity in the legal community and is gradually making its mark in the legal profession. This most recent generation of AI has transformed several sectors, including arbitration. The incorporation of AI technology has had a profound influence on arbitrators, their functions, and the overall arbitration system.

AI technologies represent a significant shift in how legal specialists, particularly arbitrators, approach their responsibilities. This technology, which is based on strong language comprehension and generating skills, has the potential to reshape the arbitration process in a variety of ways. Nonetheless, this shift carries with it numerous advantages and challenges. As a result, this blog post will investigate the noticeable effects of AI technology on arbitrators, looking into both the benefits and challenges they pose to this area.

ADVANTAGES OF AI TOOLS IN THE ARBITRATION PROCESS

Over the years, the area of arbitration has evolved tremendously. Arbitration has undergone a revolutionary transition as a result of the fast growth of technology, especially in the current generation of Artificial Intelligence. AI tools are now playing a fundamental role in arbitration, offering several advantages that have revolutionized the dispute resolution process. This section will highlight some of these advantages.

Efficiency and Speed

One of the most striking advantages of employing AI tools in arbitration is the dramatic improvement in efficiency and speed[3]. Arbitration often involves numerous amounts of documentation, legal research, and data analysis. AI systems are adept at processing and analyzing this large data with remarkable speed and accuracy, reducing the time required for the entire arbitration process. Legal research tasks that once took days or even weeks can now be completed within hours with the involvement and the use of new AI tools. This not only expedites the resolution process but also reduces the overall cost associated with prolonged arbitration proceedings.

Enhanced Decision-Making

AI technologies provide crucial data analytics and prediction insights to arbitrators. Machine learning algorithms have proven useful in the arbitration industry by evaluating past arbitration cases, legal precedents, and applicable legislation to offer arbitrators an in-depth understanding of the legal environment. Arbitrators can make well-informed, evidence-based judgments using this data-driven method. As a result, the quality of arbitration rulings increases, lowering the possibility of mistakes and increasing the overall credibility of the process.[4]

Cost Reduction

Arbitration may be a costly exercise, with parties spending large legal and administrative costs. By automating regular and time-consuming processes, AI may significantly reduce these expenses. AI-powered solutions may expedite document review, contract analysis, and due diligence, allowing parties to use their resources more efficiently. Therefore, the support that AI tools provide helps in the reduction in costs which makes arbitration more accessible and attractive to a wider range of businesses and individuals.[5]

Data and Document Management

The arbitration process often involves managing numerous amounts of data and evidence. Several AI tools excel at this task, ensuring that no critical information is overlooked. It organizes, indexes, and retrieves documents efficiently, streamlining the workflow for arbitrators and legal professionals.[6] This detailed data management also aids in maintaining the integrity of the arbitration process and facilitates strong fact-finding. Moreover, AI’s ability to analyze vast datasets extends to predicting potential outcomes of arbitration cases.[7] By examining the specifics of a current dispute alongside historical cases with similar attributes, AI can offer valuable insights into the likely results of arbitration. Parties can use this predictive capability to assess risks and benefits, make informed decisions, and even consider the possibility of settlement, saving time and resources. Moreover, AI-driven document management systems are essential in the arbitration field. These systems efficiently organize and retrieve documents, making it easier for arbitrators and legal professionals to access relevant information swiftly.[8] This not only saves time but also reduces the risk of critical documents being overlooked or lost.

Scalability

AI technologies are very flexible and can handle several scenarios at the same time. This scalability is especially beneficial for arbitration institutions and arbitrators with heavy caseloads. It enables quick case administration without sacrificing quality, ensuring that each disagreement is handled with care.[9]

Remote Arbitration

AI-powered video conferencing and virtual arbitration systems have become essential, particularly in post-pandemic environments [10]. Remote arbitration is enabled by these instruments, making the procedure accessible and simple for participants from various geographical places. This assures that arbitration can continue indefinitely, even under difficult situations.

Transparency

Artificial intelligence (AI) solutions can give real-time information on the status of arbitration proceedings, making the process more transparent for all parties involved. Investors may watch critical milestones and obtain insights into the decision-making process, increasing overall transparency and trust in arbitration.[11]

Therefore, we may conclude from what has been stated above that the use of AI technologies in the field of arbitration marked a new era of efficiency, justice, and accessibility. These technologies have resulted in a variety of benefits, ranging from accelerating the settlement process and lowering expenses to improving decision-making and preserving the integrity of processes. As technology advances, AI’s involvement in arbitration is expected to grow, making arbitration more efficient, effective, and appealing to a greater range of users. However, in addition to the benefits AI technologies bring to the arbitral process, there are also challenges to such modernization that should be considered. Those challenges will be addressed in the section following.

CHALLENGES OF AI TOOLS IN THE ARBITRATION PROCESS

Data Quality and Availability

To make knowledgeable conclusions, AI programs rely on massive amounts of data. Obtaining high-quality and relevant data in arbitration can be difficult, especially in situations involving sensitive or classified information. Ensuring data quality and dependability is critical for the success of AI applications in arbitration since it serves as the foundation for equitable outcomes and unbiased adjudications. The careful management and preservation of data support the integrity and reliability of AI-powered arbitration procedures, building trust among all parties engaged in the pursuit of fair and reasonable conclusions.[12]

Bias and Fairness

AI systems can inherit biases from the data they are trained on, which can lead to unfair outcomes in arbitration.[13] Bias can be especially problematic when it comes to decisions related to disputes involving individuals from diverse backgrounds. Ensuring that AI tools are trained on diverse and representative data and implementing bias mitigation techniques is crucial.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Given the essentially delicate nature of the material involved, confidentiality and privacy are key factors in arbitration disputes.[14] To protect those principles, AI systems used in the arbitration process must be strictly designed and implemented. This requires establishing strong data protection measures, such as modern encryption techniques, to secure sensitive data from unauthorized access. Furthermore, strict access controls should be implemented to ensure that only authorized individuals have access to secret information. Aside from these technological precautions, AI-driven arbitration systems must completely comply with significant data protection legislation such as GDPR, which establishes stringent criteria for the processing of personal and sensitive data.[15] These extensive safeguards, taken together, establish an effective foundation for preserving the secrecy and confidentiality essential to arbitration proceedings.

Human-AI Collaboration

Achieving an optimal balance between human expertise and AI assistance appears as an urgent necessity in the field of arbitration.[16] The delicate combination of utilizing AI’s capabilities while maintaining the crucial function of human oversight is a complex duty that requires our complete attention. On the one hand, an overreliance on AI technologies in the absence of watchful human oversight can lead to serious errors and misjudgments. In contrast, neglecting to realize the entire scope of AI’s potential could lead us to lost chances. The delicate skill of balancing these features, as well as the accurate boundaries of humans and AI’s various responsibilities in the arbitration process, remains a profound and ongoing challenge in the constantly evolving context of international arbitration and dispute resolution in general.[17]

Adaptability and Customization

The field of arbitration is significantly diverse, the practice and use of arbitration as a way of settling conflicts spans a wide range of fields, organizations, and scenarios with each case providing its own set of complexity and details. As a result, there is a high need for AI tools and algorithms that can adapt and customize themselves to meet the unique demands of each arbitration case. Given the fundamentally changeable nature of arbitration conflicts, developing such adaptable AI systems offers a significant challenge. The challenge is that meeting the multifarious needs of the arbitration process will always fall short.

Ethical Considerations

Incorporating AI features into the arbitration field requires a consistent commitment to respecting ethical norms and principles. The application of AI into arbitration proceedings should be carefully managed to avoid any unintentional compromise of essential principles such as due process, justice, and impartiality. In the ever-changing environment of AI-powered arbitration, ethical issues take priority. To address and reduce these critical problems, it is not only preferable but also necessary to establish strong ethical rules and execute severe supervision systems.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

The inclusion of artificial intelligence (AI) into the field of arbitration raises a number of complex legal and regulatory issues. These cover a wide range of issues, such as determining the legality of evidence created by AI systems and aligning AI usage with current arbitration rules and regulations. This is especially true given that the existing legal structure regulating arbitration is essentially designed for human decision-makers, making the adoption of AI a unique and difficult task.[18] The lack of a well-defined legal framework for AI in arbitration provides a severe challenge that must be carefully addressed. Failure to create explicit standards and protocols for the use of AI technologies in arbitration could threaten arbitration’s standing as the preferred conflict resolution process. This complex issue highlights the critical need for comprehensive and forward-thinking legislation in order to preserve the integrity and efficacy of arbitration in the fast-expanding field of AI technology.

To conclude, AI technologies have definitely influenced arbitrators and the arbitration process. While they provide several benefits, such as increased efficiency and cost savings, they also pose ethical and practical challenges. To take advantage of the benefits of AI while reducing its negative outcomes, arbitrators, legal experts, and institutions must work together to develop ethical principles and envision a future in which AI supplements, rather than replaces, human judgment in arbitration. The intelligent use of AI tools can eventually lead to more efficient and successful conflict resolution methods.

[1] Layan Al Fatayri holds an LL.B. from the Université La Sagesse with honors and further acquired her master’s degree (LL.M.) from the Université La Sagesse with honors. Layan is completing her Ph.D. studies in International and Commercial Arbitration at the University of Debrecen, Marton Géza Doctoral School of Legal Studies, Hungary, Europe. Layan worked at several professional institutions including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and participated in several international legal conferences. Layan is also a member of Young ICCA, an organization functioning under the International Council for Commercial Arbitration, the Hungarian Arbitration Association, and the Australian Center for International Commercial Arbitration.

[2] Linda L. Beyea, “The Rise of Chatgpt: Why Arbitrators Need to Take Notice.”, American Arbitration Association, (March 17, 2023).

www.adr.org/blog/The-Rise-of-ChatGPT-Why-Arbitrators-Need-to-Take-Notice

[3] MAHNOOR WAQAR, “The Use of AI in Arbitral Proceedings”, LUMS Law Journal (page 345). https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/Waqar.pdf

[4] Scherer, Maxi, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration (May 22, 2019). Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3392669

[5] “Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration: Advantages and Legal Boundaries.”

https://thefranklinlaw.com/artificial-intelligence-in-arbitration-advantages-and-legal-boundaries/.

[6] Zekos, G.I. (2022). “AI in Arbitration and Courts. In: Advanced Artificial Intelligence and Robo-Justice”. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98206-5_10

[7]“Faster Dispute Resolution: How AI Could Impact the Future of Arbitration – Journal of High Technology Law.” Sites.suffolk.edu.

https://sites.suffolk.edu/jhtl/2021/11/11/faster-dispute-resolution-how-ai-could-impact-the-future-of-arbitration/.

[8]“AI Document Processing Remains a Subtle but Powerful Use Case | TechTarget.” Enterprise AI. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/feature/AI-document-processing-remains-a-subtle-but-powerful-use-case.

[9]Nunn, Dr Jeremy, “Council Post: The Future of AI-Powered Document Processing.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/11/17/the-future-of-ai-powered-document-processing/.

[10] Wedderburn-Day, Jamie Maples, Christopher Marks, Zoë, “The Growth of Virtual Hearings in International Arbitration.” In Brief: European Disputes Blog. February 1, 2021. https://european-disputes-blog.weil.com/england-uk/the-growth-of-virtual-hearings-in-international-arbitration/.

[11] “Technology and Arbitration: New Trends in Law.” 2023. Econlib. https://www.econlib.org/technology-and-arbitration-the-new-trends-of-law/#:~:text=With%20the%20fundamental%20purpose%20of%20making%20the%20arbitration,as%20a%20judging%20entity%20in%20its%20own%20right.

[12] Chauhan, Aditya Singh. 2020. “Future of AI in Arbitration: The Fine Line between Fiction and Reality.” Kluwer Arbitration Blog. September 26, 2020. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/09/26/future-of-ai-in-arbitration-the-fine-line-between-fiction-and-reality/.

[13] Gesley, Jenny, “Artificial ‘Judges’? – Thoughts on AI in Arbitration Law”, The Library of Congress, January 13, 2021. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2021/01/artificial-judges-thoughts-on-ai-in-arbitration-law/.

[14] Id.

[15] “The GDPR and AI: Ensuring Data Protection from the Start.” News.bloomberglaw.com. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/the-gdpr-and-ai-ensuring-data-protection-from-the-start-16.

[16] Maxi Scherer, “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration”, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3392669

[17] Gesley, Jenny. 2021. “Artificial ‘Judges’? – Thoughts on AI in Arbitration Law | in Custodia Legis.” The Library of Congress. January 13, 2021. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2021/01/artificial-judges-thoughts-on-ai-in-arbitration-law/.

[18] Gizem Halis Kasap, “Can Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Replace Human Arbitrators? Technological Concerns and Legal Implications”, 2021 J. Disp. Resol. (2021) https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2021/iss2/5

Image Source: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/can-ai-be-fair