“It said exactly what I needed someone to say out loud. Not 'both sides are valid.' An actual answer.”
AI dispute resolution
Two sides.
One verdict.
No bias.
Submit your side privately. The AI reads both and issues a formal, structured ruling — not advice, not therapy. An actual decision.
What people say
“No therapist, no mediator, no $400/hr lawyer. I got a clear ruling in under two minutes. Worth every dollar.”
“The root cause section was the part that floored me. It named something we'd been dancing around for two years.”
The process
How a verdict
gets issued
From first submission to final ruling, the entire process is designed so neither party can influence, read, or tamper with what the other submitted.
- 01
Person A creates a case & shares a private link
Fill in your side of the story (500 words max) and what outcome you want. A unique invite link is generated — share it with the other person.
- 02
Person B submits their side — completely privately
They open the link and see only: "Person A has submitted their side. Now submit yours — they cannot see what you write."
- 03
The AI reads both sides and synthesizes the verdict
A single structured API call receives both submissions. The AI identifies what each person actually wants vs. what they said, names a root cause, and issues a formal ruling.
- 04
Both parties receive their private report
Person A and Person B each see the same ruling — but individual assessments are private per person. Neither sees what the other submitted, ever.
- 05
Optionally publish to the public feed
Only if both parties opt in does an anonymized version appear publicly. Names become "Person A / Person B." Either side can delete the case and all records at any time.
A real verdict, anonymized
This is what a ruling looks like
Not advice. Not “both sides have a point.” An actual judgment with evidence cited from both submissions.
The Verdict Has Been Issued
Summary
A two-year relationship experienced a significant breakdown following a series of incidents in which one party repeatedly dismissed the emotional concerns of the other without acknowledgment or follow-through on agreed changes.
Ruling
Person A bears primary responsibility for this conflict. The pattern of dismissing emotional cues without acknowledgment — despite repeated signals across three documented instances — created the conditions for this breakdown. This is not a failure of communication alone.
Root cause
Power imbalance in how emotional labor is valued and communicated within the relationship
Agree — 847Disagree — 203
From the public feed
Real disputes. Real rulings.
“Roommate dispute over split utilities after one party worked from home full-time for 8 months without adjusting the arrangement.”
Ruling
Person B owes a retroactive adjustment of $240. The arrangement was implicitly renegotiated by the change in circumstances.
51291
“Credit for a client-facing project was publicly attributed to a manager who provided minimal input after final delivery.”
Ruling
Person A's complaint is fully valid. Person B's public attribution was misleading and professionally damaging. Ruling: upheld.
1.2k44
“A three-year friendship fractured over one night in which a confidence was shared with a mutual acquaintance.”
Ruling
Both parties share responsibility. Root cause: unspoken expectations about what "best friend" confidentiality means to each person.
876332
Pricing
Simple, transparent pricing
First verdict
Free
No credit card required. Start your first case today and receive the full verdict.
- One complete verdict
- Private submission for both parties
- Full ruling + root cause
- Individual assessments per person
Per verdict
$3 / case
Pay only when you need a verdict. No subscription. No commitment.
- Everything in free tier
- Unlimited cases as needed
- Option to publish to public feed
- Full deletion available anytime
Unlimited
$9 / month
For people who need ongoing resolution — or just love the feed.
- Unlimited verdicts per month
- Priority processing
- PDF export of every verdict
- Cancel anytime
Built on privacy
“Person A never sees what Person B submitted. Not after the verdict. Not ever.”
This is the only way people write honestly — and honesty is the only way the verdict means anything.
Encrypted at rest
Submissions are locked from everyone
Raw submissions are encrypted in the database. Neither the other party nor anyone else can read what you wrote — only the AI processes the combined context.
Strict separation
Person A never sees what Person B wrote
Not after the verdict. Not if both request it. Not ever. The AI synthesizes both sides without quoting either directly.
Opt-in publishing only
Public sharing requires both parties to agree
Verdicts only appear on the public feed if both Person A and Person B explicitly click yes. Neither side can unilaterally expose the other.
Full deletion
Delete your case entirely, anytime
Any user can delete their case. Submissions, verdict, and all records are purged permanently. No retention, no backups of deleted content.
The court is now in session
Stop arguing.
Get a verdict.
First case is free. No account required.
Bring your case — it’s free