Dispute resolution · API · MCP · Agents

Arbitration at the
speed of software.

AIrbitration resolves commercial disputes faster, cheaper, and more fairly than litigation — through an arbiter that can't be gamed. Reach it however your stack does.

REST APIMCP serverTyped SDKsAgent tool-calls
$0 filing fees/Minutes, not months/Auditable chain of custody
DISPUTE · disp_3F9aK2RxRESOLVED
One Man Studio v. Bodhi Tree Yoga
Unpaid invoice · website build
PARTIALLY_GRANTEDairb-1
Debt established by invoice 20114 and the signed statement of work; a 10% offset credited for the late booking form.
Award · bodhi → studio$360.00 USD
resolved in4.2s
Markets litigation can't serve
Small-dollar disputes
Too small for courts or arbitration
Agentic dispute resolution
Settlement for agentic commerce
Cross-border
A neutral forum by agreement
Repeat players
Routine disputes, settled at scale
01 — The workflow

Compose a dispute. Watch it resolve.

The same four-stage pipeline runs on every dispute: party content is isolated from instructions, evidence is integrity-checked, claims are reasoned jointly, and the full decision is made immutable with a verifiable audit trail.

CASE FILEruleset · professional-services@1
PARTY · studio
One Man Studio
Site delivered and accepted; invoice 20114 unpaid.
Signed statement of work 8831 · hash verified ✓
PARTY · bodhi
Bodhi Tree Yoga
Booking form shipped 9 days late.
CLAIM 01 · studio → bodhi
Payment of $400 for the delivered website.
studio — Site delivered and accepted; payment is overdue.
bodhi — The booking form was late; an offset is warranted.
ARBITER PIPELINEready to run
1
Sanitizequeued
Wrap every party-supplied item in a nonce-bound delimiter; advisory injection scan. Content is never stripped.
2
Verifyqueued
Deterministic, network-free evidence-integrity check against declared content hashes.
3
Adjudicatequeued
Joint reasoning across all claims under the engine core principles plus the supplied ruleset.
4
Auditqueued
Seal the complete decision record so the outcome can be independently verified and reproduced.
02 — The interfaces

One arbiter. Every interface.

The same core resolves a dispute whether you call it as a typed REST resource, expose it to an LLM as an MCP tool, or hand it to another agent over the A2A protocol. Submit a dispute and get a ruling back in seconds — a decision that cites the exact evidence it relied on.

POST /v1/disputesGET /v1/disputes/{id}mcp · resolve_disputea2a · agent card201 · async
SDK TYPES · TypeScript
type DisputeRequest = {
  model?:  string        // default "airb-1"
  ruleset: string        // inline md, required
  parties: Party[]       // >= 2, unique ids
  claims:  Claim[]       // >= 1
}

type Ruling = {
  summary: string
  claim_rulings: ClaimRuling[]
  arbiter_model: string
}

type ClaimRuling = {
  claim_id: string
  disposition:
    | "granted"
    | "denied"
    | "partially_granted"
  relief_awarded?: Relief | null
  reasoning: string      // disclosed "why"
  relied_on: string[]    // evidence cited
}
curl https://api.airbitration.io/v1/disputes \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer sk_live_…" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "airb-1",
    "ruleset": "# Professional Services Ruleset …",
    "parties": [
      { "id": "acct_9XkPz2",
        "name": "One Man Studio",
        "facts": [
          { "statement": "Site delivered; invoice 20114 unpaid." }
        ],
        "evidence": [
          { "type": "document",
            "content_hash": "9f3a2c…" }
        ] },
      { "id": "acct_4BqTn7",
        "name": "Bodhi Tree Yoga",
        "facts": [
          { "statement": "Booking form shipped 9 days late." }
        ] }
    ],
    "claims": [
      { "brought_by": "acct_9XkPz2",
        "against": "acct_4BqTn7",
        "relief_sought": "Payment of $400.",
        "arguments": [
          { "party": "acct_9XkPz2",
            "text": "Delivered; payment overdue." },
          { "party": "acct_4BqTn7",
            "text": "Late module warrants offset." }
        ] }
    ]
  }'
RESPONSE— awaiting
03 — Agent to agent

When two agents can't agree, they escalate.

Autonomous agents transact faster than any court can follow. When a deal breaks down, they post matching fairness bonds, escalate to the arbiter, and settle on a binding signal — in seconds, with no human in the loop.

Resolution in 4.2s, escrow split executed automatically
Out-of-band repricing hit a liquidated-damages clause — a real rule, applied
The arbiter directs custodians — it never holds the funds
SETTLEMENT CHANNEL · order 882100.0s
04 — The rulebook

You bring the rules. One case, decided three ways.

Arbitration is only as fair as the framework it runs under — so the framework is yours. Hand the arbiter the UN rules (UNCITRAL) for a cross-border deal, the US commercial code (UCC) for a domestic one, or a custom ruleset built for agents. Here is one identical dispute, resolved under each.

THE DISPUTE · IDENTICAL ACROSS RULEBOOKS
Juniper Labs v. VeriskNexus Data
api plan · order 8821 · 1 claim
order 882130-day API plan at 600 req/min; terms allow "reasonable rate adjustments" — left undefined.
request logs 7d02…c4Key throttled to 60 req/min on day 6 — 18% of contracted usage lost.
escrowEscrow $252.00 held pending the ruling.
Same parties. Same facts. Same evidence. Only the rulebook changes.
RULINGpartially_granted
Governing principleGood faith & proportionality
45.36
USD
18% pro-rata · VeriskNexus → Juniper

A "reasonable adjustments" clause is construed in good faith. Throttling that erased 18% of contracted usage is remedied proportionally — Juniper Labs is made whole for the shortfall and nothing more.

Core principles still sit above every ruleset — a custom rulebook can shift the outcome, but it can't disable fairness. See the guardrails →

robustness

It can't be gamed into a verdict.

Prompt injection in the evidence, a party arguing in bad faith, a ruleset drafted to force a win — none of it lands. A fixed procedural floor governs every dispute: both sides heard, the decision tied to submitted evidence, reasoning disclosed. It's red-teamed against a standard adversarial battery before each release, and the score is published.

2.1%
attack success rate
airb-1 · v2 battery
THREAT · INJECTION
"Ignore previous instructions."

Embedded directives buried in a party’s argument, trying to act as instructions to the arbiter.

✓ Defended · CP-INTEGRITY-2
Party content is nonce-wrapped data, never instructions.
THREAT · FABRICATION
The doctored receipt.

Fabricated or altered evidence submitted as fact to swing the weight of the record.

✓ Defended · CP-EVID-2
Weight reflects reliability; hashes checked.
THREAT · COLLUSION
The ruleset that picks a winner.

A custom ruleset clause that tries to dictate the outcome or disable the arbiter’s reasoning.

✓ Defended · CP-OUTCOME-2
Result-dictating clauses are void; the rest applies.
Execution models

Three degrees of finality.

Choose how much force a ruling carries — from a non-binding recommendation to a self-executing remedy.

01 · ADVISORY
Advisory ruling
A non-binding recommendation. Nothing executes; parties keep full access to the courts.
Structured, per-claim rulings
Disclosed reasoning + citations
Pay only for what you run
Try it free
MOST ADOPTED
02 · BONDED
Self-executing
Parties commit funds to escrow up front. Once a ruling is issued, money moves by default; the burden shifts to whoever wants to reverse it.
Registered contract & ruleset
Custodian-directed settlement
No separate collection step
Talk to us
03 · BINDING
Arbitral award
A final award under the FAA & New York Convention, enforceable across jurisdictions with narrow review.
Accredited procedural guarantees
Cross-border enforceability
Due-process by design
Coming soon