Are Arbitrations Public Record? (w/Examples) + FAQs

No, arbitrations are not public record. Unlike court cases where filings, hearings, and judgments become part of the public record, arbitration proceedings remain private by default. However, private does not mean confidential. The Federal Arbitration Act does not require confidentiality, and neither the American Arbitration Association (AAA) nor JAMS automatically bind the parties to keep proceedings secret. This creates a significant gap that catches many people off guard.

According to recent data from the AAA, over 280,000 individual arbitration claims were filed in 2024 alone, yet only about 1% of consumer cases and 2% of employment cases resulted in a formal award. The vast majority settle or get dismissed—often without any public trace. But when parties need a court to enforce or challenge an award, the documents can become part of the public court record, stripping away the privacy that parties expected.

In this article, you will learn:

📜 What makes arbitration different from court litigation in terms of public access

⚖️ How to protect your arbitration from becoming public when court enforcement is needed

🔍 Which arbitration providers (AAA, JAMS, FINRA) have different confidentiality rules—and what they actually cover

🏛️ State-by-state variations that affect arbitration transparency (California, Texas, New York, and others)

❌ Common mistakes that accidentally make private arbitrations public

The Core Difference: Private vs. Confidential

Understanding the distinction between private and confidential is critical. These terms are often used as if they mean the same thing. They do not.

Private means the arbitration hearing is closed to the public. Non-parties cannot attend unless both sides agree. There is no public docket listing the case. The media cannot access the proceedings.

Confidential means the parties, their attorneys, and witnesses cannot disclose what happened during the arbitration. This includes the evidence presented, the testimony given, and the final award. Confidentiality must be explicitly agreed upon in the arbitration agreement or through a separate confidentiality order.

The AAA states clearly in its Statement of Ethical Principles that parties “always have a right to disclose details of the proceeding, unless they have a separate confidentiality agreement.” JAMS takes a similar approach—its Rule 26 requires the arbitrator and JAMS to maintain confidentiality, but not the parties themselves.

Federal Law: What the Federal Arbitration Act Actually Says

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), enacted in 1925, governs arbitration agreements across the United States. It contains no confidentiality provisions whatsoever. The FAA addresses when arbitration agreements are enforceable, how awards can be confirmed or vacated, and the limited grounds for judicial review. Privacy and confidentiality are not mentioned.

This silence creates the following reality:

Section 9 of the FAA allows any party to apply to a court for confirmation of an arbitration award. Once filed, the award becomes a judicial document. The Third Circuit has held that any document making its way into the clerk’s file carries a presumption of public access.

Section 10 lists the only grounds for vacating an award:

• Corruption, fraud, or undue means
• Evident partiality or corruption of the arbitrator
• Arbitrator misconduct
• Arbitrators exceeding their powers

None of these grounds relate to confidentiality breaches. If your opponent discloses the award publicly, Section 10 provides no remedy.

The Stafford v. IBM Case: A Cautionary Tale

In 2023, the Second Circuit addressed a clash between arbitration confidentiality and public access to court records. Elizabeth Stafford, a former IBM employee, won an age discrimination arbitration against IBM. The arbitration agreement contained a confidentiality provision.

Stafford then filed to confirm the award in federal court—but simultaneously asked the court to unseal the award. Her stated goal was to allow her attorneys to use the award in other age discrimination cases against IBM.

The court ruled that the FAA’s policy favoring confidentiality in arbitration outweighed the public access presumption in this specific case because Stafford was attempting to circumvent her own agreement. However, the court strongly suggested that a party who contests an award—by seeking to vacate it or refusing to pay—may lose the ability to keep it sealed.

Takeaway: If you want to preserve confidentiality, do not file the award with a court unless absolutely necessary. If your opponent pays the award, the case may become moot before you can unseal it.

Major Arbitration Providers and Their Confidentiality Rules

Different arbitration organizations have different rules about confidentiality. None of them automatically impose confidentiality obligations on the parties themselves.

American Arbitration Association (AAA)

The AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rule R-45 requires the AAA and the arbitrator to keep all matters relating to the arbitration and award confidential. This rule does not extend to the parties.

The AAA’s Statement of Ethical Principles explains: “The parties always have a right to disclose details of the proceeding, unless they have a separate confidentiality agreement. Where public agencies are involved in disputes, these public agencies routinely make the award public.”

What AAA confidentiality covers:

• AAA staff cannot disclose case information
• Arbitrators must keep proceedings confidential
• Documents submitted through AAA WebFile are governed by privacy policy

What AAA confidentiality does NOT cover:

• Party disclosure to third parties
• Witness testimony outside the hearing
• Settlement discussions
• Award publication by parties

The AAA publishes consumer and employment awards in a redacted format (party names removed, arbitrator names included) and posts quarterly caseload statistics.

JAMS

JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rule 26 states that “JAMS and the Arbitrator shall maintain the confidential nature of the Arbitration proceeding and the Award.” Like the AAA, JAMS does not impose confidentiality obligations on the parties themselves.

JAMS arbitrators may issue orders to protect:

• Proprietary information
• Trade secrets
• Other sensitive information

However, these orders must be requested—they are not automatic.

FINRA (Securities Arbitration)

FINRA takes a unique approach. Arbitration hearings are private—only parties, attorneys, and witnesses may attend. However, FINRA publishes all arbitration awards in its Arbitration Awards Online database, which is freely searchable by the public.

This means investors, attorneys, and researchers can search for any arbitration award involving a broker or brokerage firm. FINRA’s BrokerCheck tool also discloses broker disciplinary history, customer complaints, and arbitration awards.

Why this matters: If you are a broker facing arbitration, the outcome becomes part of your permanent regulatory record. FINRA maintains lists of firms and individuals with unpaid customer arbitration awards, creating significant reputational and business consequences.

State-by-State Variations: Where Location Matters

While federal law provides the baseline, states have enacted their own rules affecting arbitration confidentiality.

California: The Transparency Leader

California requires private arbitration companies to publish detailed information about consumer and employment arbitrations. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.96 mandates quarterly disclosure of:

• Name of the non-consumer party (if a business)
• Type of dispute
• Whether the arbitration clause was a pre-dispute agreement
• Outcome (settlement, award, dismissal)
• Award amount
• Time from filing to disposition
• Arbitrator name

This information must be published on the arbitration company’s website in a searchable format. The practical effect is that anyone can research how often a particular company goes to arbitration, how often it wins, and which arbitrators handle its cases.

Important note: The California law requires disclosure of case statistics, not the actual documents or testimony from the arbitration. The proceedings themselves remain private.

Texas: Party Agreement Controls

Texas follows a traditional approach where confidentiality depends primarily on party agreement. The State Bar of Texas notes that parties “can agree to maintain the confidentiality of the arbitration proceeding, unlike in court, where requests to seal the record are seldom granted.”

The Texas Justice Center’s arbitration rules provide that unless otherwise agreed, “all proceedings, communications, papers, and documents that are a part of arbitration under these Rules are strictly confidential.” This is more protective than the AAA or JAMS national rules.

The Texas Trade Secrets Act may also support protective orders for proprietary information.

New York: Court Access Presumption

New York courts apply a strong presumption of public access to judicial documents. In the Southern District of New York, courts have repeatedly rejected arguments that arbitration awards should be sealed simply because they arose from a confidential proceeding.

The Stafford case from the Second Circuit represents an exception, but it turned on the fact that the plaintiff was actively trying to evade her own confidentiality agreement.

Minnesota: Public Labor Arbitration

Minnesota publishes interest arbitration awards involving public employees. All such awards are public under Minnesota Statute 179.04A. For grievance arbitration, an award is not public only if the arbitrator rules entirely in favor of the employee and reverses all aspects of the disciplinary action.

The Three Most Common Scenarios

Scenario 1: Sarah’s Employment Dispute

Sarah, an account manager, signed an arbitration agreement when she joined her company. After being terminated, she filed an arbitration claim for wrongful termination. The arbitration agreement said the process would be “confidential.”

Sarah’s lesson: The word “confidential” in her agreement only meant the hearings were private. To keep the outcome confidential, she needed a specific clause prohibiting disclosure of the award by either party.

Scenario 2: TechCorp’s Trade Secret Arbitration

TechCorp arbitrated a dispute with a former contractor who allegedly misused proprietary software code. TechCorp’s general counsel assumed all documents would remain confidential.

TechCorp’s lesson: Before producing sensitive evidence, request a protective order from the arbitrator specifically covering trade secrets. Even then, any information cited in the award may become public if the award is filed with a court.

Scenario 3: Investor’s FINRA Claim

Michael, a retail investor, filed a FINRA arbitration against his broker for unsuitable investment recommendations. He lost money in speculative options trading that his broker allegedly encouraged.

Michael’s reality: Unlike commercial arbitration, FINRA arbitration awards are always public. Michael could not have kept his victory private even if he wanted to.

Do’s and Don’ts: Protecting Arbitration Confidentiality

Do’s

1. Draft an explicit confidentiality clause in your arbitration agreement
Standard arbitration clauses typically reference AAA or JAMS rules, which only bind the arbitrator to confidentiality. Add language like: “All documents, evidence, proceedings, and awards shall be kept confidential by all parties and may not be disclosed to any third party without written consent.”

Why: Without explicit language, parties retain the right to disclose.

2. Request a confidentiality order from the arbitrator at the first hearing
Most institutional rules allow arbitrators to issue protective orders covering sensitive information.

Why: A general confidentiality agreement may not be specific enough. An arbitrator’s order can define exactly what must be protected.

3. Pay adverse awards promptly to avoid court confirmation
If you lose and the award is paid, the prevailing party has less incentive to file in court. Once the award enters the court system, confidentiality is at risk.

Why: Courts apply a presumption of public access to judicial documents.

4. Consider mediation-arbitration (med-arb) for maximum privacy
Disputes that settle in mediation never produce an award that could become public.

Why: No award means nothing to confirm in court.

5. Mark all sensitive documents as “Confidential”
Create a paper trail showing you treated the information as proprietary.

Why: Courts may consider whether information was historically treated as confidential when ruling on sealing motions.

Don’ts

1. Don’t assume “private” means “confidential”
Privacy only prevents non-parties from attending. It does not prevent parties from discussing the case.

Why: The FAA, AAA, and JAMS rules do not bind parties to confidentiality.

2. Don’t rely on a confidentiality clause to seal court records
Courts routinely reject arguments that arbitration confidentiality provisions justify sealing judicial documents.

Why: The First Amendment creates a presumption of public access to court records.

3. Don’t include overbroad confidentiality provisions in employment arbitration agreements
The NLRB has found that clauses preventing employees from discussing “settlements” or underlying facts can violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

Why: Employees have protected rights to discuss terms and conditions of employment.

4. Don’t file arbitration awards in court unless necessary
Every filing creates an opportunity for the award to become public.

Why: Judicial documents carry a presumption of public access.

5. Don’t forget about California’s disclosure requirements
If your arbitration involves California consumers or employees, case outcome data will be published quarterly by the arbitration provider.

Why: California law mandates transparency regardless of party agreements.

Mistakes to Avoid

Mistake 1: Using a standard arbitration clause without customization
Many businesses copy arbitration language from templates without adding confidentiality provisions. The result is an agreement that provides privacy (closed hearings) but not confidentiality (non-disclosure obligations).

Negative outcome: A disgruntled employee wins arbitration and immediately posts the award on social media. The company has no legal recourse.

Mistake 2: Attaching confidential documents to court filings
When confirming or vacating an award, attorneys sometimes attach the entire arbitration record as exhibits. Once filed, these become judicial documents.

Negative outcome: A competitor obtains the confidential documents through a public records request or simple docket search.

Mistake 3: Assuming FINRA arbitration is confidential
Brokers and financial advisors often do not realize that all FINRA awards are published online and become part of their permanent BrokerCheck record.

Negative outcome: A broker loses a customer arbitration, and the award appears in searches by prospective clients and future employers.

Mistake 4: Including confidentiality clauses that conflict with other agreements
In Alberto v. Cambrian Homecare, a California court found that an employer’s confidentiality agreement and arbitration agreement were so intertwined—and the confidentiality agreement so one-sided—that both were rendered unenforceable.

Negative outcome: An employee invalidates the entire arbitration agreement because the related confidentiality provisions were unconscionable.

Mistake 5: Failing to request a protective order for trade secrets
Without a specific order, sensitive business information produced in arbitration could be used by the opposing party or even subpoenaed in separate litigation.

Negative outcome: A company’s pricing strategy, disclosed during arbitration, is later obtained by a competitor through discovery in an unrelated lawsuit.

The Privacy vs. Transparency Debate

A significant policy debate exists over whether arbitrations should be more transparent, particularly in consumer and employment contexts.

Arguments for More Transparency

Consumer advocates argue that confidential arbitration allows companies to hide patterns of misconduct. The National Consumer Law Center contends that forced arbitration clauses “give corporate lawbreakers a get-out-of-jail free card.”

The Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act, reintroduced in Congress in September 2025, would prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements in consumer, employment, and civil rights cases. Supporters argue that public court proceedings create accountability that private arbitration cannot.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, signed into law in March 2022, already carved out an exception allowing employees to choose court over arbitration for sexual harassment and assault claims.

Arguments for Maintaining Confidentiality

Business groups contend that confidentiality is one of arbitration’s primary benefits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform released a 2023 study finding that consumers won 42% of arbitration cases (compared to 29% in court) and received faster resolutions.

The study also found:

• Consumers won an average of $80,000 in arbitration vs. $71,000 in court
• Arbitrations resolved in 321 days vs. 439 days for litigation
• Employees won 38% of arbitration cases vs. 11% in court

However, critics note that other studies show significantly different results. A Cornell study of AAA employment arbitrations found only a 21.4% employee win rate, with median awards of just $36,500—substantially lower than litigation outcomes.

Labor Arbitration: A Different Framework

Unionized labor arbitration operates under different rules than individual employment arbitration.

Collective bargaining agreements typically include grievance procedures that culminate in arbitration. Under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, federal employees can use negotiated grievance procedures ending in binding arbitration.

Labor arbitration awards are often published in legal databases and used as persuasive authority in future cases. The Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services publishes all interest arbitration awards as public records. The State of Ohio maintains a searchable database of arbitration awards involving state employees.

Unions have information request rights under Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, entitling them to records needed to investigate grievances and prepare for arbitration.

International Arbitration: Global Variations

International arbitration rules vary significantly on confidentiality.

The ICC Rules do not automatically impose confidentiality on parties—only on arbitrators and ICC staff. The ICC has partnered with Jus Mundi to publish all publishable awards made since January 2019, with party consent required and identifying details redacted.

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules impose explicit confidentiality obligations on parties, designating as confidential “all awards in the arbitration, together with all materials in the arbitration created for the purpose of the arbitration.”

The ICDR rules (the international division of the AAA) only impose confidentiality duties on arbitrators and administrators, not parties.

English courts recognize an implied duty of confidentiality in arbitration as a matter of law. U.S. courts have refused to imply such a duty.

Government and Public Agency Arbitrations

When a government entity is a party to arbitration, public records laws may override confidentiality provisions.

Federal agencies must comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires disclosure of agency records with certain exemptions. Records created by contractors and submitted to agencies generally become subject to FOIA requests.

The AAA acknowledges that public agencies “routinely make the award public” regardless of confidentiality provisions. State public records laws similarly may require disclosure of arbitration outcomes involving government entities.

FAQs

Are arbitration hearings open to the public?
No. Arbitration hearings are private proceedings. Only parties, their attorneys, witnesses, and the arbitrator may attend.

Are arbitration awards automatically confidential?
No. Neither the Federal Arbitration Act nor major provider rules require parties to keep awards confidential. Specific agreement is required.

Can I find out if a company has been sued in arbitration?
Yes, in California. State law requires arbitration providers to publish quarterly reports including company names and case outcomes.

Are FINRA arbitration awards public?
Yes. All FINRA awards are published in a searchable online database and appear on BrokerCheck reports.

Can a confidentiality clause prevent court records from becoming public?
No. Courts apply a presumption of public access. Confidentiality agreements do not automatically justify sealing.

Do AAA rules require parties to keep arbitration confidential?
No. AAA Rule R-45 only binds the AAA and arbitrators to confidentiality, not the parties themselves.

Can I seal an arbitration award when confirming it in court?
Rarely. You must show a “clearly defined and serious injury” would result from disclosure. Mere contractual confidentiality is usually insufficient.

Does the Ending Forced Arbitration Act make arbitrations public?
No. The EFAA allows employees to choose court instead of arbitration for sexual harassment claims. It does not change confidentiality rules for arbitrations that proceed.

Are labor arbitration awards public?
Often yes. Many labor awards are published in legal databases and used as precedent. State laws may require disclosure of public employee arbitration awards.

Can employees discuss arbitration outcomes with coworkers?
Usually yes. The NLRB has ruled that overly broad confidentiality provisions can violate employees’ Section 7 rights to discuss terms of employment.

What happens if I breach an arbitration confidentiality agreement?
Varies. You could face breach of contract claims and damages. However, information already filed with a court may still become public.

Do international arbitration rules provide more confidentiality protection?
It depends. LCIA rules impose party confidentiality. ICC and ICDR rules only bind arbitrators, not parties.