Virginia Focuses Attention on Large Players in Arbitration

The Virginia state legislature has passed a bill that would impose requirements on large-scale arbitration service providers in an effort to promote fairness to consumer parties.

Senate Bill 227, now awaiting action from the governor, would reenact the state’s Uniform Arbitration Act’s provisions for vacating an award and additional provisions targeting “high-volume arbitration service providers.” The bill comes with other consumer protection-oriented measures introduced in the 2026 legislative session and resembles similar provisions in Washington, D.C., and California.

Legislative History

SB 227 was introduced by Virginia State Sen. Scott A. Surovell, a Fairfax County, Va., Democrat and current state Senate Majority Leader. 

In his 2026 Legislative Agenda, Surovell described the bill as “provid[ing] a legal pathway for those in arbitration to hold these service providers accountable.” By grouping the bill with other consumer protection measures, the Senate Majority Leader views this bill as a means of demystifying the arbitration process for consumers.

Surovell’s full 2026 Legislative Agenda can be found at this link.

Definitions

The bill defines a “high-volume arbitration service provider” as “any arbitration service provider that conducts more than 100 arbitrations per calendar year that arise from a pre-dispute arbitration agreement involving a Virginia-connected transaction.” In other words, this is a large player in the arbitration market that frequently conducts arbitrations.

Additionally, a “pre-dispute arbitration agreement” is an “agreement to arbitrate a dispute between a consumer and a business” or between an employee and his or her employer in the state of Virginia.

Finally, a “Virginia-connected transaction” is “any transaction, agreement, or dispute that arises out of, relates to, or is otherwise connected with” the state of Virginia. A Virginia-connected transaction also includes arbitration “as ordered by a state or federal court located” in Virginia. The wide reach of the word “transaction” suggests that the legislature intends these requirements to apply to most kinds of disputes.

Key Provisions

First, the bill amends the existing code and sets forth a procedure for vacating an arbitration award.

When a party applies for vacation of the award, the court “shall” vacate when: the award was procured by undue means, the arbitrator was “evident[ly] partial[],” or the arbitrator exceeded his or her power, among other reasons.

The party seeking to vacate the award must do so within 90 days of receiving the award. But when fraud or other undue means are involved, the party may have 90 days after the “grounds are known or reasonably should have been known.” 

In vacating the award, a court “may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the agreement.” But, if the court denies a party’s motion to vacate the award under this provision, the court confirms the award.

Second, the bill introduces the “Arbitration Fairness Act” and imposes specific selection processes and disclosure requirements on high-volume providers.

In selecting an arbitrator, a high-volume provider cannot require a party to use a specific individual. Broadly, the provider must also maintain a procedure “that provides parties with... a meaningful opportunity to agree upon an arbitrator.” It also must provide that when the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, there is “an impartial system for arbitrator selection” giving each party an “equal voice” that is “transparent and fair to all parties.”

Like other arbitration fairness efforts, for example, California’s S.B. 574, which would require arbitrator disclosure of any generative AI use, whether this would allow parties a meaningful opportunity to comment on arbitrator selection is unclear. Although the bill spells out certain fairness keystones, like transparency and collaborative input, it does not attempt to define what a “meaningful opportunity to agree upon an arbitrator” looks like in practice.

Additionally, high-volume providers must make an annual filing with the Virginia State Corporation Commission to report the total number of arbitrations in the calendar year with a short description and any statistical data collected regarding arbitrator selection and outcome.

This provision closely mirrors Washington, D.C.’s “Regulation of arbitration organizations provisions” which provides that an organization involved in “50 or more consumer arbitrations a year” must make similar details available to the public. The full Washington, D.C., arbitration code (D.C. Code §§ 16-4401, et seq.) is available to read here.

Similarly, California’s analogous provision requires public disclosure of pertinent details. Unlike the Virginia bill and the D.C. provision, however, the California law doesn't specify a threshold size of the arbitration provider. Instead, any “private arbitration company that administers or is otherwise involved in consumer arbitration” must collect and publish details of its arbitrations. The full California arbitration code (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1280, et seq.)  is available to read here.

When a high-volume provider violates the Virginia provisions, an aggrieved party may seek injunctive relief or another “appropriate civil remedy” in the city or county court. The State Corporation Commission may also impose a civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation. 

The bill has passed both the state’s Senate and House of Delegates and as of April 10 is awaiting the governor's action. 

Gov. Abigail D. Spanberger, the recently elected Democrat who previously served as a member of Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, has until 11:59 p.m. on April 13--this Monday--to take action on the bill. 

State Senate Majority Leader Surovell in an e-mail said that Spanberger has not reached out to his office about the bill, but he does not expect any issues before the April 13 deadline.

If passed, these provisions apply to all arbitration agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2026.

* * *

The status of SB 227 and full legislative history can be viewed directly at this link.

* * *

The author is a CPR Institute Spring 2026 semester intern and is a second-year student at Brooklyn Law School in New York.