A. In any arbitration with a high-volume arbitration service provider pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, the high-volume arbitration service provider shall not require any party to accept or use any particular arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding involving a Virginia-connected transaction.
§ 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
In one sentenceHigh-volume arbitration service providers cannot force a party into a particular arbitrator, must run an impartial selection process such as striking, ranking, or random pre-approved-pool selection, must have the proposed neutral arbitrator disclose potential conflicts, and cannot handle a case where a party or its law firm has a recent financial stake in the provider.
Full Text of § 8.01-581.018
B. A high-volume arbitration service provider shall establish and maintain procedures that provide parties in any arbitration agreement pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with (i) a meaningful opportunity to agree upon an arbitrator and (ii) for cases where an agreement upon an arbitrator cannot be reached, an impartial system for arbitrator selection that ensures that (a) each party has an equal voice in the selection process, (b) neither party may unilaterally impose an arbitrator upon the other party, and (c) the selection process is transparent and fair to all parties.
C. An acceptable impartial system for arbitrator selection in accordance with subsection B shall include the following:
1. A striking method in which parties alternatively eliminate arbitrators from a list until one remains;
2. A ranking method in which parties rank arbitrators and the highest mutually ranked arbitrator is selected;
3. A random selection method in which an arbitrator is selected from a pool of arbitrators previously approved by both parties; or
4. Any other method that ensures neither party can compel the other to accept an arbitrator without meaningful input.
D. In any arbitration with a high-volume arbitration service provider pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement, the proposed neutral arbitrator shall disclose all matters that may cause a person who is aware of the facts to have reasonable uncertainty that such proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial. Such disclosures include:
1. The existence of any ground for disqualification of a judge for a violation of the Canons of Judicial Conduct;
2. Whether the proposed neutral arbitrator has a current arrangement concerning prospective employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution neutral or is participating in, or, within the last two years, has participated in, discussions regarding such prospective employment or service with a party to the proceeding; or
3. The names of the parties to all prior or pending arbitrations during the preceding five years where the proposed neutral arbitrator served or is serving as a party arbitrator for a party to the arbitration proceeding or for a lawyer for a party to such proceeding, and the results of each case arbitrated to conclusion, including the date of the arbitration award, the identification of the prevailing party, the names of the parties' attorneys, the text of any written award, and the amount of monetary damages awarded, if any. To preserve confidentiality, it shall be sufficient to give the name of any party who is not a party to the pending arbitration as "claimant" or "respondent" if the party is an individual and not a business or corporate entity.
E. No high-volume arbitration service provider shall administer an arbitration pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement and involving a Virginia-connected transaction if any party or law firm representing a party has, or within the preceding five years has had, any type of financial interest in the private arbitration company, including by ownership, employment, or appointment and payment as an arbitrator or other neutral.
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.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: virginia arbitration fairness act arbitrator selection8.01-581.018 virginia codearbitrator conflict of interest disclosure virginiahigh volume arbitration provider rules virginiavirginia arbitrator striking method selection