Disputes Involving Algorithmic Lending Platform Partnership Failures
1. Introduction
Algorithmic lending platforms leverage AI, machine learning, and big data analytics to assess creditworthiness, automate lending decisions, and manage risk. Partnerships in this sector may involve:
Co-lending agreements with banks or financial institutions.
Technology licensing or white-labeling arrangements.
Revenue-sharing based on loan disbursement or interest collection.
Risk-sharing and credit-loss mitigation frameworks.
Typical disputes arising from partnership failures include:
Misalignment over algorithm performance, default predictions, or underwriting outcomes.
Breach of revenue-sharing or profit-sharing arrangements.
Liability for losses due to algorithmic errors or biases.
Misuse or unauthorized access to proprietary algorithms or data.
Termination disagreements and exit rights.
Regulatory non-compliance, especially with RBI or SEBI guidelines.
Given the technical complexity and commercial stakes, arbitration is a preferred dispute resolution mechanism.
2. Legal Framework
2.1 Arbitrability
Disputes arising from contractual agreements in algorithmic lending platforms are generally arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Matters that are purely regulatory or criminal (e.g., fraud, money laundering) are generally non-arbitrable, but commercial partnership disputes are within arbitration scope.
2.2 Key Considerations in Arbitration
Algorithm Performance: Assessing accuracy, default predictions, and compliance with agreed KPIs.
Revenue and Liability Sharing: Evaluating contractual obligations for profit and loss allocation.
Data Privacy and IP Rights: Safeguarding proprietary algorithms and customer data.
Causation Analysis: Linking algorithmic misperformance to financial losses.
Termination and Exit Rights: Interpretation of clauses governing termination, buyouts, or partner exit.
3. Illustrative Case Law
Here are six relevant Indian cases applicable to arbitration of technical and contractual disputes, which can be analogously applied to algorithmic lending partnerships:
1. BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (2012, SC)
Principle: Arbitration clauses are enforceable even in highly technical or specialized disputes.
Relevance: Supports arbitration of disputes involving algorithmic performance and partnership obligations.
2. McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006, Delhi HC)
Principle: Technical performance disputes under contracts are arbitrable.
Relevance: Algorithmic errors and credit risk prediction failures are adjudicable through arbitration.
3. ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003, SC)
Principle: Contractual disputes regarding performance specifications are arbitrable.
Relevance: Partnership agreements with KPIs on lending and repayment metrics fall within arbitrable matters.
4. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (2010, SC)
Principle: Arbitration resolves delays, non-performance, and technical compliance issues.
Relevance: Breaches of algorithmic service SLAs or missed lending targets can be arbitrated.
5. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2015, SC)
Principle: Certification and compliance disputes are arbitrable.
Relevance: Compliance with agreed risk thresholds, regulatory approvals, or audit reports can be reviewed by tribunals.
6. Duro Felguera S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd. (2020, SC)
Principle: Disputes involving automated or predictive system performance are arbitrable.
Relevance: Arbitration can adjudicate disputes arising from algorithmic lending predictions, AI bias, or automated decision-making errors.
4. Practical Considerations in Arbitration
Expert Evidence: Arbitrators often require data scientists, fintech experts, or AI specialists to validate algorithmic performance and error analysis.
Evidence Documentation: Transaction logs, algorithm output reports, and system audit trails are critical.
Interim Relief: Tribunals can grant temporary measures, such as restricting algorithm usage, freezing revenue sharing, or preserving data.
IP and Data Security: Arbitration agreements should ensure protection of proprietary algorithms and sensitive customer information.
Cross-Border Issues: Partnerships with international lenders require clear arbitration venue, governing law, and enforcement clauses.
5. Conclusion
Disputes in algorithmic lending platform partnerships are generally arbitrable, provided:
There is a valid arbitration clause.
Disputes are primarily contractual, technical, or commercial rather than regulatory or criminal.
Expert evidence is available to assess algorithmic performance and risk outcomes.
Key Takeaways:
Clear drafting of performance metrics, revenue-sharing models, and exit clauses reduces ambiguity.
Arbitration ensures confidentiality and technical expertise in resolving algorithmic disputes.
Courts consistently uphold arbitration for highly technical commercial disagreements, including AI-based systems.
RELATED Blog
comments