Can AI Help Settle Disputes? Mediation Meets Machine Learning

AI is reshaping everything—from playlists to courtrooms. But what happens when we let algorithms mediate our conflicts? Here’s what you need to know about the risks and rewards of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution.

Artificial intelligence is no longer just sci-fi—it’s sitting in on legal strategy meetings. In the courtroom and beyond, AI is being used to analyze past rulings, predict case outcomes, and even suggest legal moves before the opposition makes them. This is called predictive justice, and it’s gaining ground in the U.S. and Europe. The promise? Faster decisions, fewer legal costs, and more consistency. The catch? If the data used to train these systems is biased, the outcomes can be too. 

One of the most cited cases in debates about algorithmic injustice is the COMPAS system — a proprietary risk assessment tool used across the U.S. justice system. COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) claims to predict how likely a defendant is to reoffend. These scores are used in sentencing, bail, and parole decisions — in other words, life-altering moments.

In 2016, ProPublica published an investigation revealing that COMPAS scores were racially biased: Black defendants were disproportionately labeled as “high risk” of reoffending, even when they ultimately did not reoffend. Conversely, white defendants were often deemed “low risk” and went on to commit new crimes. The model wasn’t only flawed — it was opaque. Defendants couldn’t challenge their scores because the model was proprietary and its inner workings guarded like a trade secret. The result: a Kafkaesque system where your freedom can be determined by a number you’re not even allowed to understand.

This case became a landmark example of how data-driven systems can replicate and automate existing structural bias, all while maintaining a veneer of “neutral” math. It continues to be cited in policy papers, ethics debates, and academic literature as a cautionary tale of what happens when we let algorithms make moral judgments.

In contrast, the European Union’s approach to algorithmic decision-making has been marked by a more cautionary — even avoidant — stance toward these types of high-risk systems.

Under the EU’s newly passed AI Act, systems like COMPAS would almost certainly fall under the “high-risk” category and be subject to strict regulation, transparency requirements, and oversight. Even before the AI Act, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) already included Article 22, which gives individuals the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing — especially when it significantly affects them.

What does this mean in practice? It means that in many parts of Europe, a system like COMPAS wouldn’t just be controversial — it might be outright illegal in its current form. The very idea that a black-box model could help decide someone’s prison sentence clashes fundamentally with European legal values around due process, explainability, and the right to a fair trial.

Where the U.S. often leans into “innovation first, fix later,” Europe tends to begin with: Should this even be allowed?

Now AI is stepping into the world of mediation—helping resolve disputes before they even hit the courts. These systems can propose compromises, predict success rates, and reduce travel or legal fees by running online. Virtual mediators (yes, that’s a thing) can help parties work through conflict using previous legal data and behavioral patterns.

Sounds efficient, right? But there’s a human side to mediation that algorithms struggle to mimic—like reading emotion, building trust, or coming up with creative solutions.

AI might be impartial, but it’s not empathetic, and it can still carry hidden biases from its training data. Plus, people are rightly concerned about how private and secure their data is when it’s being analyzed by a machine.

AI-assisted mediation isn’t replacing lawyers or mediators anytime soon—but it’s a powerful tool if used wisely. The future of dispute resolution could be hybrid: human empathy guided by machine logic. What’s key is transparency, accountability, and smart regulation. As we move toward faster and more digital legal systems, it’s crucial that fairness doesn’t get left behind.

Need help navigating conflict resolution? Reach out to our team for a consultation today!

Photo: Person Holding Gray and Black Compas by Pixabay from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-holding-gray-and-black-compas-220147/