One branch of legal technology that holds particular promise for non-professionals is developing access to justice through the use of online dispute resolution (‘ODR’). This is because ODR can use technology to enable online claim diagnosis, negotiation, and mediation without the time, money, and stress of traditional court processes. Indeed, courts are now moving traffic ticket, landlord-tenant, personal injury, debt collection, and even divorce claims online. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the growth of online processes, including court and administrative processes that traditionally occurred in person. Nonetheless, these online processes seem focused mainly on case management and communication, neglecting the need for more imaginative and innovative uses of technology. We propose a six-module system for ODR programs and identifies gaps in development where new technologies are needed to advance access to justice.

When individual consumers are involved in disputes with traders, they increasingly resort to consumer online dispute resolution pathways (cODR) in their search for redress. The field of cODR is quickly developing throughout Europe as an increasing number of cODR providers are entering the field and a growing number of ADR bodies are implementing digital technologies in their procedures.The development of cODR in Europe is and has been significantly influenced and facilitated by the EU legislator, driven by the aim to enhance access to justice for consumers and to strengthen consumer confidence in the internal market. In 2013, the EU legislator adopted the ADR Directive and the ODR Regulation for the purpose of harmonising the field of CDR throughout the EU. Almost a decade has passed since the EU legislative framework on consumer dispute resolution was adopted. The European legislator confirmed the revision of the ADR/ODR regulatory framework in 2023 with the aim to modernize the framework. This paper aims to evaluate the EU ODR platform, to highlight the promising potential of this platform and thereby to argue for its continuation.

Although online mediation has been around for a long time, it came into the spotlight again under the influence of Covid and the associated lockdowns.
Virtual meetings became the norm. And mediators, reluctantly, switched to digital tools to support their conversations, using programs such as Ms Teams, ZOOM, Jitsi, or Webex.
In this contribution the possibilities and limitations of online mediation are discussed, based on research findings in the context of workplace mediations, divorce mediations, and peace negotiations. Commercial disputes are beyond the scope of this article.

This article discusses the problems of the current dispute resolution methods and suggests that there is a need for a paradigm shift in the field of dispute resolution and this shift can come from a new dispute resolution mechanism called Blockchain Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (BCODR). The article examines two contemporary BCODR systems (Kleros and PeopleClaim) in detail and argues that those systems did not become widely used because of their reliance on cryptocurrencies and because their incentive models are based on financial remuneration. In the author’s opinion, for a BCODR to succeed, it needs to accept not only cryptocurrencies, but also fiat currencies and needs to rely on an innovative incentive model that will ensure that the BCODR system is provided either at low cost or at no cost.

Unpaid debts often accumulate with snowball effect, and contribute to an all more increasing poverty trap in our societies.
All parties involved, also consumers, must be informed and educated towards responsible behavior in debt and credit engagements. Obviously prevention may not solve all problems and recovery of unpaid debts is there to remain.
Efficient and ethical debt recovery then balances both the property rights of creditors who must be paid and the human rights of debtors who may not be pushed into poverty.
In order to find and implement such balance we need a paradigm shift from the current unilateral approach of one claim of one creditor towards the human being behind the claim, and often many more claims.
First of all no recovery measures can be put at the cost of the debtor unless they are taken by official bailiffs according to a strict procedure organized by law.
Second these bailiffs must put the human being of the debtor at the center of their proceedings, taking into account all debts, informing each other through a digital platform and collaborating in order to avoid unnecessary and costly measures.
Thirdly, the recovery process must contain down the road multiple checks on both solvability and paying capacity. As early as possible indications of poverty and impossibility to pay must be detected and followed up by putting the debtor on the track of debt assistance, with the help of opublic welfare instances and legal measures such as debt mediation in the frame of an official proceeding of collective debt regulation.
Likewise debtors who seem capable of paying must be informed, helped, offered installment schemes, etc. Here the communication and facilitation skills of the bailiff are essential. The recovery process at some point in time also includes a physical visit of the bailiff at the debtor’s premises.
Hence bailiffs need specific training and awareness on such mediation, communication and facilitation skills. The article provides a concrete illustration of such training.
Finally the article concludes with a detailed draft of legislative Act illustrating how this approach and paradigm shift could be implemented. The draft is accompanied by an introduction and explanatory note.