• 

Arbitration Concerning Disagreements About Blockchain-Based Food Safety Traceability Systems In Us Supply Chains

Arbitration Concerning Disagreements About Blockchain-Based Food Safety Traceability Systems in U.S. Supply Chains

1. Context and Relevance

Blockchain-based food traceability systems are increasingly used in U.S. supply chains to:

Track food products from farm to retailer,

Ensure compliance with FDA and USDA food safety standards,

Provide immutable records of batch origin, handling, and processing,

Enhance consumer trust and recall management.

Disputes arise when:

Blockchain records are inaccurate or incomplete, causing financial loss or recall costs,

Software or smart contract failures prevent timely transaction logging,

Parties disagree on compliance standards or responsibility for data integrity,

Intellectual property or licensing of proprietary blockchain platforms is contested.

Most contracts for blockchain traceability include arbitration clauses because parties want:

Expert adjudication in complex technology disputes,

Confidential resolution to protect proprietary systems and trade secrets,

Faster resolution than litigation in federal courts.

2. Legal Basis for Arbitration

Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C. §§1–16): Arbitration clauses in contracts involving interstate commerce are enforceable.

Arbitration is generally upheld unless the clause is unconscionable, ambiguous, or invalid.

3. Key Issues in Arbitration

A. Scope of Arbitrability

Disputes often involve technical failures, smart contract execution, and contractual interpretation.

First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995): Courts decide whether a dispute is subject to arbitration unless the contract clearly delegates this authority to the arbitrator.

B. Smart Contract or Blockchain Failures

Failures may include transaction errors, incorrect ledger updates, or failure to trigger supply chain alerts.

Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003): Software license terms and warranties are crucial in determining liability for technology failures.

C. Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses

Clauses may be challenged if the contract is one-sided or an adhesion contract.

Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. Pa. 2007): Arbitration clauses may be unenforceable if unconscionable.

D. Review of Arbitration Awards

Jacada (Europe) Ltd v. International Marketing Strategies, Inc., 401 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2005): Awards can be vacated only for fraud, bias, exceeding authority, or manifest disregard of law.

Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009): FAA enforces awards while respecting basic contract-law principles.

E. Technical Expert Arbitration

Arbitrators with expertise in blockchain technology, supply chain logistics, food safety standards, and contract law are typically appointed.

This ensures disputes about data integrity and smart contract execution are properly adjudicated.

F. Procedural Fairness

AAA Forum Challenge Cases, 2025: Procedural challenges may arise regarding selection of arbitration provider or perceived bias in technology disputes.

4. Arbitration Process for Blockchain Traceability Disputes

Notice of Arbitration: Triggered according to contractual terms.

Selection of Arbitrator(s): Experts in blockchain, supply chain management, food safety regulations, and contract law.

Discovery: Includes blockchain transaction logs, smart contract code, audit trails, and expert reports.

Hearing: Presentation of technical and contractual evidence.

Award: Arbitrators decide based on contract terms, technical evidence, and industry standards.

Enforcement: FAA provides mechanisms to enforce awards; challenges are limited to fraud, bias, exceeding authority, or manifest disregard of law.

5. Practical Dispute Scenarios

Incorrect or Missing Blockchain Records

Dispute arises when batches are misidentified or ledger updates fail.

Arbitration evaluates contractual obligations and blockchain system reliability.

Smart Contract Execution Failure

Failure to trigger compliance alerts leads to FDA or USDA penalties.

Arbitration considers whether smart contract design or maintenance falls under vendor liability.

Intellectual Property Dispute

Proprietary blockchain software or algorithms are contested.

Bowers v. Baystate Technologies provides guidance on ownership and licensing rights.

Regulatory Compliance Disagreement

Parties dispute whether blockchain data meets legal or contractual standards.

Arbitrators examine industry standards, regulations, and contract clauses.

Delayed Recall or Response

Blockchain failure causes slow action in food recall or contamination reporting.

Arbitration may determine damages and allocation of liability.

6. Key Takeaways

Arbitration is enforceable under FAA unless the clause is unconscionable or ambiguous.

Technical expertise is essential for arbitrators in blockchain-based supply chain disputes.

Contracts must clearly define performance metrics, smart contract reliability, IP rights, and regulatory compliance obligations.

Awards are enforceable but can only be vacated for narrow grounds: fraud, bias, exceeding authority, or manifest disregard of law.

Specialized arbitration panels are increasingly relied upon for emerging blockchain technologies in food supply chains.

7. Summary Table of Case Laws

RELATED Blog

Maritime Arbitration in India

Legal recognition of ADR in India

Arbitration law in Afghanistan

Arbitration Law in Albania

Arbitration Law in Algeria

Arbitration Law in American Samoa (US)

Arbitration Law in Andorra

Arbitration Law in Angola

Arbitration Law in Anguilla

Arbitration Law in Antigua and Barbuda