§ 8.01-581.018.Arbitrator selection process; methods; prohibited practices.
Chapter 21. Arbitration and Award · Article 3. Arbitration Fairness Act · Last amended 2026 · Last verified July 16, 2026
Full Text of § 8.01-581.018
Plain-English Summary
This section is the heart of the Arbitration Fairness Act’s consumer and employee protections, targeting the arbitrators themselves rather than the arbitration process. It applies once a provider crosses the “high-volume” threshold and is handling a case that started with a pre-dispute arbitration clause.
The core prohibition is direct: a high-volume provider cannot require a party to accept or use a particular arbitrator. Beyond that flat rule, the provider has to build and maintain a real selection process — one that gives every party a meaningful chance to agree on an arbitrator, and, when agreement is not reached, a system where each side has an equal voice, neither side can force an arbitrator on the other, and the process itself is transparent. The section names four acceptable systems: a striking method where the parties eliminate names from a list one at a time until one remains; a ranking method where the highest arbitrator both sides rank goes forward; random selection from a pool both parties already approved; or any comparable method that keeps either side from being able to compel the other’s acceptance without meaningful input.
Disclosure obligations fall on the proposed neutral arbitrator personally. That arbitrator has to reveal anything that would give a reasonable, informed person doubt about impartiality — the same kind of grounds that would disqualify a judge under the judicial conduct rules, any current or recent discussions about future paid work as a dispute resolution neutral for a party, and, going back five years, the names of parties in other arbitrations where this arbitrator served as a party-selected arbitrator, along with how those cases came out. Individual parties’ privacy is preserved by labeling them “claimant” or “respondent” instead of naming them.
Finally, the section closes off a conflict-of-interest loophole: a high-volume provider cannot administer a Virginia-connected arbitration if a party, or that party’s law firm, has had any financial interest in the provider — through ownership, employment, or paid work as an arbitrator — within the preceding five years.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a high-volume arbitration provider make a party use a specific arbitrator?
No, the provider shall not require any party to accept or use any particular arbitrator in a proceeding involving a Virginia-connected transaction.
What selection methods satisfy the impartial-system requirement?
A striking method where parties alternately eliminate names from a list, a ranking method where the highest mutually ranked arbitrator is chosen, random selection from a pool both parties previously approved, or any other method ensuring neither party can compel the other to accept an arbitrator without meaningful input.
What must a proposed neutral arbitrator disclose?
Any grounds that would disqualify a judge under the Canons of Judicial Conduct, any current or recent prospective employment discussions with a party, and the parties and outcomes of prior or pending arbitrations over the preceding five years where the arbitrator served as a party arbitrator.
Can a high-volume provider administer a case if a party’s law firm invested in the provider?
No, the provider cannot administer an arbitration if a party or its law firm has, or has had within the preceding five years, any financial interest in the private arbitration company.
How is a party’s privacy protected when an arbitrator discloses prior case history?
It is sufficient to identify a party who is not part of the pending arbitration as “claimant” or “respondent” if that party is an individual rather than a business or corporate entity.
Amendment History
2026, c. 490.