Greggonomics 12: The Reality of Complaints in Independent ADR

One subject I have never really written about is the emotional and professional reality of dealing with complaints in independent ADR.

At Hunt ADR, I take complaints about our service extremely seriously. We do get a few, and the overwhelming majority come from arbitration parties who have lost their case and believe – often sincerely – that the system must therefore be corrupt.

The most common accusation is that we are “in the pocket of ABTA” or aligned with travel companies. That we are biased, compromised, or even bribed. These claims are entirely unfounded, but explaining that reality to someone who feels wronged by an outcome can be extraordinarily difficult.

What makes this especially challenging is the intensity of the response. Abuse is not uncommon. One-star reviews describing us as a scam, a disgrace, or fraudulent appear regularly, not because of delays or errors, but simply because someone did not win. Criticism is part of operating any complaints body, and where we are responsible for mistakes or delays – because we are human, and we do make mistakes – I will always try to put things right. That is accountability.

What is disheartening is being accused of corruption for doing a job properly.

Suggestions that we take bribes, that we are controlled by industry bodies, or that outcomes are manipulated are deeply offensive. Not because they harm our reputation – those who understand ADR know how implausible they are – but because they fundamentally misunderstand how the system works.

I am a small business owner. I live a very ordinary life. No mansion. No sports cars. No luxury lifestyle funded by secret influence. In fact, many of our holidays cost less than the disputes we are asked to administer. Even if people saw that, I doubt it would change their perception – but the truth still matters.

It sometimes feels unsatisfactory to say, “we don’t make the decisions; an independent arbitrator does.” It can sound like a deflection. But it’s not, it’s simply the reality.

Even if I wanted to influence an outcome, I couldn’t – and I wouldn’t want to. Arbitrators are independent by design. Their decisions are their own. And for the avoidance of doubt: we are not universally loved by travel companies either.

The New Complication: AI-Generated Complaints

In recent months, this has become even more difficult with the advent of generative AI.

We are now seeing complaints submitted that are clearly AI-written. They are often lengthy, confidently expressed, and superficially impressive. Unfortunately, they are also frequently riddled with inaccuracies.

These complaints regularly quote laws that do not apply, misstate procedural rights, invent legal principles, or rely on precedent from entirely different jurisdictions. It is not uncommon to see references to U.S. consumer law, irrelevant European regulations, or case law that simply does not exist.

The issue is not the use of AI itself. Technology can be helpful when used responsibly. The problem is that AI does not understand jurisdictional limits, scheme rules, or the procedural realities of arbitration. It produces something that looks authoritative but is often legally fictional.

This helps no one. It does not assist the arbitrator. It does not strengthen the complainant’s case. And it creates additional work for an already stretched system, because time must now be spent dismantling inaccuracies before the substance of the complaint can even be addressed.

There is also a psychological effect. When someone submits an AI-generated complaint, they often believe it gives them an advantage because it “sounds legal.” When the outcome does not change, that misplaced confidence can harden into anger and reinforce the belief that the system must be biased or corrupt – and more abuse follows.

In reality, the opposite is true. Clear, accurate, and focused complaints – written in plain language and grounded in the correct rules – are far more effective than pages of confidently wrong assertions.

AI is not the enemy. But uncritical reliance on it, particularly in a regulated ADR environment, creates noise rather than clarity. It is another reason why expectations, education, and transparency matter more than ever.

ADR occupies an uncomfortable space. One party will always be unhappy with the outcome. That dissatisfaction often needs somewhere to land, and too often it lands on the organisation administering the process rather than on the reality of independent decision-making.

I will continue to take complaints seriously. I will continue to correct mistakes when they occur. And I will continue to stand behind the integrity of the system, even when that means absorbing criticism that has nothing to do with how we actually operate.

That is part of the job. But it is also worth saying out loud.

The Last Word

I try to finish each Greggonomics with a quote, and this lyric felt appropriate for a piece about perception, accusation, and the gap between noise and reality:

“Mr writer, why don’t you tell it like it is? Why don’t you tell it like it really is?” – Stereophonics

Independent ADR is not about narrative, popularity, or volume. It is about accuracy, process, and decisions that will not please everyone.

This issue was about doing exactly that: telling it like it is.

See you next time, Gregg