Publisher's Synopsis
In the digital era and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic environment, the word 'alternative' in ADR has become less meaningful. Its implied optional status relative to litigation is coming into question as experts increasingly recognize its necessity. Apart from ADR, there often exists few other practical and viable options through which consumers can resolve disputes effectively, especially for low value disputes. For the average consumer, litigation is not only costly financially and timewise, but the complex processes and legal jargons can be daunting as well. These factors can deter consumers from pursuing remedy altogether. For these reasons, policymakers and practitioners have been advocating for ADR and ODR as the primary avenues for consumers who seek redress and justice. Moreover, civil court judges have been using 'ODR' to refer to e-litigation and e-courts that are specifically designed and implemented with consumers in mind, despite ostensibly contradicting the very meaning of ODR as an out-of-court option. Third-party, independent CDR schemes provided by public authorities, not-for-profit organizations (such as consumer association or publicly funded corporations), and for-profit private sector or commercial bodies most often appear in the ADR/ODR category, and they can also include in-house business or e-commerce platform customer services. The outcome of these approaches may be advisory (non-binding) or determinative (binding).
