Mass arbitration has quickly evolved into a major pressure point for companies, with filings surging into the hundreds of thousands each year. In a May 2025 infographic, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) reported receiving 82 consumer mass arbitrations that involved 247,327 individual filings.
Only a small percentage of these individual claims—about 10% for consumer cases and 1% for employment cases—advanced through the AAA’s updated mass arbitration process. The top industries where mass arbitrations arose in the year 2024 were gaming and entertainment, telecommunications, healthcare, financial services, and tech. Projections for 2025 are expected to increase as mass arbitrating has become a growing litigation strategy, aimed at overwhelming companies with high volumes of filings.
To mitigate a dramatic growth in mass arbitration, both the AAA and Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) introduced new, but distinct, mass arbitration procedures in 2024, which were aimed at improving efficiency, promoting fairness, and controlling the significant administrative costs that often accompany such coordinated filings [AAA Rules & JAMS Rules]. As mass arbitration becomes an increasingly strategic tool for claimant-side firms, understanding these evolving rules and their differences is essential for companies seeking to manage and respond to these high-volume actions effectively.
Trigger Thresholds for Mass Arbitration
The AAA’s mass arbitration rules apply when 25 or more similar claims are filed against the same or related parties with coordinated representation, regardless of whether the claims are submitted together or over time. JAMS’ rules require a higher threshold—75 or more similar claims filed by individually represented claimants using the same or coordinated counsel—and they apply only if the procedures are expressly adopted in the arbitration agreement. Unlike the AAA, JAMS does not extend its mass arbitration rules to class arbitrations.
Revised Fee Structures
Both providers have redesigned their cost frameworks to ease the financial burden traditionally triggered by large volumes of filings, but their approaches differ significantly.
The AAA now replaces individual filing fees with a single $11,250 initiation charge, of which the company pays $8,125 and the consumer pays the balance. After the Process Arbitrator’s review or completion of the initiation phase, parties pay a per-case fee, with companies owing $325 for each of the first 500 cases, decreasing as volumes rise; the initiation fee is credited toward these amounts. When selecting a merits arbitrator, companies pay an appointment fee of $450 if the AAA selects the arbitrator or $600 if parties use list-and-rank. Merits arbitrators bill $300/hour for consumer matters and their published rates for employment matters. The AAA also charges a final fee—$600 per consumer case and $750 per employment case—once a hearing is set or final submissions are due—paid entirely by the company.
At JAMS, parties pay a single $7,500 non-refundable filing fee, with the company covering at least $5,000 and the claimant responsible for up to $2,500. The company must also pay the Process Administrator’s hourly charges and an appointment fee of $2,000 for two-party matters or $3,500 for disputes with three or more parties. Unlike the AAA, JAMS assesses this appointment fee per arbitrator rather than per case, which can significantly reduce costs when one arbitrator oversees multiple related claims. In addition, the company pays a case management fee equal to 13% of the projected professional fees of the Process Administrator and/or merits arbitrator.
Claimant Affirmations and Documentation
Both AAA and JAMS now require claimant-side counsel to verify the accuracy of submitted information to curb unsupported or fictitious filings. Under the AAA’s rules, counsel must provide an affirmation attesting that each claimant’s information is accurate, with violations subject to Rule 11–style sanctions. JAMS similarly requires counsel to provide each claimant’s arbitration agreement and identifying information, accompanied by a sworn declaration attesting to the truth of the submission.
Role of Process Arbitrators or Administrators
Each provider uses a preliminary decision-maker to manage administrative issues at the outset of a mass arbitration. The AAA may appoint a Process Arbitrator after initiation fees are paid to address procedural or rule-based disputes before a merits arbitrator is assigned. JAMS uses a Process Administrator with similar authority to hold conferences and resolve preliminary administrative matters, helping streamline the early stages of the proceeding.
Additional Procedural Features
A notable distinction between the providers is the AAA’s requirement that parties participate in global mediation, which proceeds alongside arbitration unless a party opts out, adding a structured opportunity for early resolution. JAMS has no such requirement. Additionally, neither provider has adopted bellwether procedures, leaving all claims to proceed without a test-case system—an approach that contrasts with other arbitration forums that use bellwethers to manage large claim inventories.
As mass arbitration continues to grow, both the AAA and JAMS have implemented frameworks to streamline processes, control costs, and improve efficiency. For companies, a clear understanding of these rules is essential to anticipate administrative burdens, manage potential exposures, and craft strategic responses. EBG counsel is always prepared to assist with strategizing your company’s approach to handling mass arbitration filings, whether it be by reviewing your arbitration agreement to prevent exposure or by assisting with a coordinated strategic response to a mass arbitration filing.
