1. Empowerment through E-Courts & Public Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)?
Professor Amy J. Schmitz

2. Types of ODR (Online Dispute Resolution)
Problem Diagnosis
An automated process that provides buyers and sellers key information and sets reasonable expectations
Direct Negotiation
A tool that enables disputants to communicate directly through a web forum in an attempt to reach agreement
Mediation
A process in which an impartial third party joins the discussion between the disputants to help them find resolution
Evaluation
The endpoint for ODR, where a neutral hears both sides of the dispute and then renders decision that is binding on both sides

3. ODR Innovation: eBay Court
Example provided by Colin Rule at Modria, an ODR provider

4. Why move dispute resolution online?
Litigation & Face-to-Face (F2F) arb/med are costly
Consumers prefer online access (85% vs. 15% by phone)
Use data & online neutrals to assist resolutions
Adapt to language, education, physical & time differences
Ease public costs with private collaborations
Provide remedies & hold companies liable in small dollar claims (where consumers would otherwise “lump it”)

5. Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Consumer Protection
The new handshake
Online Dispute Resolution
and the Future of Consumer Protection
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

6. What is the new handshake?

7. Online Consumers have it Rough
Merchants can make it tough to get solutions
The Squeaky Wheel System
Social pressures not to pursue redress
Digital divide may create asymmetries
Class actions cut off by binding arbitration
Limitations on remedies may prevent action
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

8. What consumers want Fast and easy resolutions
Don’t want to fight or pick up the phone
Free or low cost access to remedies
Fair and consistent treatment (combat SWS)
Privacy
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

9. The business case for resolutions
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

10. The new handshake Single platform Embeddable button
Easy and free for consumer
Scalable for merchants
Visibility for auditors & consumer agencies
Highly automated and scalable
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

11. But should ODR Move to the Public Realm?
UNCITRAL WG III (ended in 2016 but emphasized need in small claims)
E-Court Pilots in the US
Ohio
Michigan NY
Utah, Nevada, Texas….
E-Court and Public ODR Outside the US
Canada-- CRT
China – Hangzhou Internet Court
UK – Her Majesty’s Online Court
EU – EU ODR Regulation
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

12. Assuring ethical standards --icodr

13. Icodr believes that ethical ODR must be:
Accessible: easy for parties to find and participate in and not limit their right to representation; available through both mobile and desktop channels; easy for people with different physical ability levels.
Accountable: continuously accountable to the institutions, legal frameworks, and communities that they serve.
Competent: run by those with relevant expertise in dispute resolution, legal, technical execution, language, and culture required to deliver competent, effective services in their target areas.
Confidential: respectful of party communications in line with policies that must be made public around a) who will see what data, and b) how that data can be used.
Equal: respectful of all participants, including those that are often silenced or marginalized.

14. Icodr believes that ethical ODR must be:
Fair/Impartial/Neutral: provided without bias or benefits for or against individuals, groups, or entities, with full disclosure of any concerns before ODR begins.
Legal: in accordance with the laws in all relevant jurisdictions.
Secure: provided with assurance that data collected and communications between those engaged in ODR is not shared with any unauthorized parties.  
Transparent: in full disclosure of a) the form and enforceability of dispute resolution processes and outcomes, and b) the risks and benefits of participation.
See

15. Designing systems Combatting asymmetries and the Digital Divide
Binding vs. non-binding
Ethics and audits
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and algorithms
Security and privacy
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

16. Additional Concerns for Public ODR
State action and augmented due process duties
Public perception and fear of digitalization
Internet access and education
Politics, start-up costs and lost jobs
Transparency vs. privacy
Fairness vs. efficiency
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

17. CONCLUSION
It is not simple to design and build ODR systems that are sufficiently secure, easy & effective. Key debates around cost, security, scope, consent, and trust have stymied development. E-courts and public ODR, however, provides promise for individual empowerment and access to remedies without the cost and time involved in traditional F2F processes. The challenge now is to engage private and public entities, and encourage experiments seeking to expand access to justice and legal empowerment using technology. Indeed, the time is now for inventing means for all individuals to enjoy access to remedies and fair treatment.
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©

18. Professor Amy J. Schmitz
Thank you!
Your comments are welcome!
Professor Amy J. Schmitz
Outreach: MyConsumertips.info (website/app)
Newhandshake.org
cfm?per_id= (SSRN)
Copyright Amy J. Schmitz©