Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels
AI disputes are different. The evidence is not just documents, it is algorithms, training data, and model weights. Often, a client's most valuable asset is a trade secret they cannot risk exposing, and the decision-maker involved may not fully understand the technology. Standard litigation and arbitration rules simply were not built for this reality.
The JAMS AI Rules: What They Change
The JAMS Artificial Intelligence Dispute Rules fix that. Here is what litigators and stakeholders need to know.
The Crown Jewel: Rule 16.1(b)
This is the rule that changes everything. Traditionally, when an AI system is central evidence, producing it meant handing trade secrets directly to a competitor. This often led to months of discovery battles or unfavorable settlements.
The solution:
- The disclosing party makes its AI system available for inspection in a secure environment it controls.
- Inspection is limited to the opposing party’s experts only.
- Experts cannot remove source code or any materials, eliminating the risk of misappropriation.
- If trust is an issue, parties can jointly request a neutral expert from a JAMS-maintained list to report to the arbitrator.
For litigators, this kills the "we cannot produce it" objection. Discovery happens, but trade secrets stay secret.
Discovery: What You Get and What You Do Not
The rules are designed to prevent "fishing expeditions." You must know exactly what you need and why before you ask for it.
- Direct relevance: Requests must be "directly relevant" to the dispute; extensive definitions and "all documents related to" language are not permitted.
- Limited e-discovery: Access is limited to sources used in the ordinary course of business. Metadata is restricted to email headers, and no backup tapes are produced without a compelling need.
- Cost-shifting: If e-discovery costs are disproportionate, the requesting party may be required to advance those costs.
- Depositions: Generally limited to one per side unless the arbitrator finds more are warranted.
Technical Arbitrators and Default Confidentiality
Under Rule 15(b), JAMS must propose panelists with appropriate backgrounds and experience for evaluating technical subject matter. You are not educating a generalist; these arbitrators already understand the difference between training data and model weights.
Furthermore, Rule 26(b) makes confidentiality the default. All parties and counsel must strictly maintain the confidence of all details regarding the arbitration and the award. This is automatic and does not require negotiating a separate protective order.
A Schedule Built for Speed
You cannot litigate the way you do in federal court. The JAMS AI Rules prioritize efficiency:
| Milestone | Timeline |
|---|---|
| Initial document exchange | 21 days after pleadings close |
| Fact discovery closes | 75 days after preliminary conference |
| Expert discovery closes | 105 days after preliminary conference |
| Hearing commences | 60 days after expert discovery closes |
The upside is clear: your client gets a resolution in months, not years.
The Bottom Line
For those drafting contracts involving AI development, licensing, or deployment, it is vital to include the JAMS AI Rules now, before a dispute arises. If you are already in an AI dispute where these rules apply, you have a powerful framework to resist overbroad discovery and protect your most sensitive assets.
Disclaimer: I used AI to help draft and refine this post, but the ideas, analysis, and editorial judgment are my own.
About the Author
Salma Saad is the founder of Rule26 AI and a CIPP/US certified technical expert. With 20+ years in software engineering, she provides technical memos that translate complex AI systems into actionable evidence for litigation teams.