Discussions about the parameters of what constitutes Online Dispute Resolution have increased in depth and rigor since the exponential growth in the application of technology to dispute resolution in the shadow of the pandemic. The definition of the boundaries of ODR can significantly impact access to justice through systems design, technology selection, practitioner training, and ethical standards. Given the centrality of these to dispute handling processes, the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution developed a descriptive ODR Framework outlining parameters based on the amount of reliance on humans, technology integration, and automation. The presentation at the ODR Forum in Dublin 2022 publicly launched the Center’s paper, Framing the Parameters for Online Dispute Resolution.

The panelists present the latest edition of the online dispute resolution standards published by the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution (NCTDR) and the International Council for Online Dispute Resolution.

The presenters discuss the development and application of the UDPM, a standard framework for opening mediation sessions. The elements of the UDPM are presented and their impact on self-determination is discussed.

The most difficult challenge of modern-day courts has been their inequality in terms of access and outcomes. Much effort has been devoted to render court proceedings quicker, less expensive, and more comprehensible, especially for litigants in person (LIPs) as they represent the majority of court users in civil proceedings. There is an ongoing 1.4 billion court reform program in England and Wales, which is introducing new online processes, including notably, the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC), which current pilot has already processed over 300,000 small claims under £10,000. This new digital court process provides a unique site for exploring the potential and challenges associated with the shift to online proceedings in terms of access to justice, equality of outcomes and perceptions of fairness. To that end, this paper discusses the background of the OCMC process and a research proposal for its evaluation. By empirically understanding what elements of the digital dispute resolution process work well and those that need improvement, there is a unique opportunity to identify design changes in the digital court, so that it can become more accessible and fairer for LIPs, who represent the largest group of court users, and therefore whose views determine the level of public confidence in the English legal system.

Closing remarks at the 21st annual Online Dispute Resolution Forum highlighted key themes raised during the conference. Interestingly, they reflected both the push for integrating technology into dispute resolution systems and institutions and the push to resist such integration, urging instead system and institutional transformation. Creative and successful examples in each approach reflected attention to equality and access to justice.

A cross section of the Fellows of the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution (NCTDR) present short reactions to the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) programs like ChatGPT, indicating the potential advantages and the potential dangers inherent as AI is integrated into dispute resolution systems.

ChatGPT-like AI is a powerful large language model (LLM) for generating human-like text but cannot replace the third party of online dispute resolution (ODR). A Colombian judge used ChatGPT as an ‘assistant’ to help in making a court decision, proving that it cannot play the role of the independent third party. However, ChatGPT-like AI can work as the fourth party and is suitable for preventing and resolving school-related disputes in China. The tests of Open AI ChatGPT, ChatSonic and the Chinese version of ChatGPT prove ChatGPT-like AI has the potential to play the role of the fourth party. It is feasible to customize ChatGPT-like AI as the fourth party to handle school-related disputes in China, thereby exploring the new frontier of ODR. In a word, ChatGPT-like AI enhances the role of the fourth party.

The resolution of disputes lies at the heart of every system of justice. Unfortunately, bottlenecks at courts tend to make tribunal procedures quite lengthy and therefore sometimes unattractive. Also, not all disputes are brought before courts if appealing costs are highly disproportional to the value of claims, at the expense of the latter. Clearly, the situation may harm the prestige of justice by giving the impression that it cannot always serve a fast and fair solution to all needy citizens. The growing area of consumer disputes has been experiencing the consequences of stiff and expensive court systems and has long been searching for a new resolution medium. Satisfaction of such a need would benefit not only single consumer-trader relationships but economic development in general, since it relies largely on the outcomes of a robust and healthy commerce. In many countries in and outside the European Union, the modern institutional reaction to this exploration has led to the realms of the ‘alternative resolution of consumer disputes’. What is it and how truly accessible and effective can it be? How is it performed, what outcomes can it produce and, in the final analysis, why and to what extent could it be preferable to courts? The present article will illustrate answers to such questions by making explicit evaluative references to the most basic operational aspects and productive outcomes of Greece’s single public ADR entity, the Greek Consumer Ombudsman.