process standards do not prevent courts from considering the software’s
assessment.
11 As this example demonstrates, use of dispute resolution technology
may strengthen the existing power structures and biases and make decision-making
less transparent.
In addition to court-focused initiatives, some legal tech companies provide
services for consumers to aid them in reaching their legal rights without intervention from lawyers or courts. For example, consumers may use the chatbot app
DoNotPay to contest their parking tickets or FlightRight to claim compensation
from airline companies for flight delays they are entitled to, based on EU
Regulation 261/2004. Such dispute resolution applications could be considered
as access services, as their goal is to lower the threshold for legal help while, of
course, making a profit from these relatively marginal use cases. Another aspect of
such services is access to legal information in an easy and user-friendly manner.
Online legislation and case law portals as well as information design and social
media play a role in making law more accessible and, at times, more transparent
to laypeople.
A point of interest is that while some applications of dispute resolution
technology focus on improving legal processes and facilitating access through
relatively simple solutions such as chatbots, legal design and user portals, others
experiment with artificial intelligence, machine learning and data analytics
towards algorithmic decision-making. Despite differences in technology, most
applications strive for automation of routine legal labour, of those tasks that do
not require far-reaching in casu consideration, those relatively easy cases that have
little variation. Law firms are experimenting with automation of legal research
and argument with the help of machine learning-based applications such as
Lawyer Ross, a customisable software built on IBM’s computer system Watson
that can answer questions posed in natural language.
12
When compared to these recent developments, it seems that the emphasis of
dispute resolution technology has shifted away from ODR. Naturally, this shift
does not trivialise the importance early ODR research has played in establishing the
field. Early ODR applications included communication platforms and complaint
management systems as well as settlement support tools such as blind bidding
systems, where parties suggest a monetary settlement sum without the other party
seeing and the algorithm generates an agreement when both enter the acceptable
range.
The EU’s ODR platform is a prominent example of current ODR applications.
The platform directs consumers’ claims against online traders to national ADR
entities. Since February 2016, over 46,000 complaints have been filed through
the platform
13 – a surprisingly small number when taking into consideration that
the EU’s Single Market accounts for 500 million consumers and 21 million small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
14 Another, often quoted example of
successful ODR is eBay’s Resolution Center, which is claimed to handle around
60 million e-commerce disputes annually.
15 eBay is an online marketplace where
the sellers list items for sale and buyers may bid for the items and thus enter into
a binding agreement with the seller for the sale of goods. As conflicts may arise
62 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology
assessment.
11 As this example demonstrates, use of dispute resolution technology
may strengthen the existing power structures and biases and make decision-making
less transparent.
In addition to court-focused initiatives, some legal tech companies provide
services for consumers to aid them in reaching their legal rights without intervention from lawyers or courts. For example, consumers may use the chatbot app
DoNotPay to contest their parking tickets or FlightRight to claim compensation
from airline companies for flight delays they are entitled to, based on EU
Regulation 261/2004. Such dispute resolution applications could be considered
as access services, as their goal is to lower the threshold for legal help while, of
course, making a profit from these relatively marginal use cases. Another aspect of
such services is access to legal information in an easy and user-friendly manner.
Online legislation and case law portals as well as information design and social
media play a role in making law more accessible and, at times, more transparent
to laypeople.
A point of interest is that while some applications of dispute resolution
technology focus on improving legal processes and facilitating access through
relatively simple solutions such as chatbots, legal design and user portals, others
experiment with artificial intelligence, machine learning and data analytics
towards algorithmic decision-making. Despite differences in technology, most
applications strive for automation of routine legal labour, of those tasks that do
not require far-reaching in casu consideration, those relatively easy cases that have
little variation. Law firms are experimenting with automation of legal research
and argument with the help of machine learning-based applications such as
Lawyer Ross, a customisable software built on IBM’s computer system Watson
that can answer questions posed in natural language.
12
When compared to these recent developments, it seems that the emphasis of
dispute resolution technology has shifted away from ODR. Naturally, this shift
does not trivialise the importance early ODR research has played in establishing the
field. Early ODR applications included communication platforms and complaint
management systems as well as settlement support tools such as blind bidding
systems, where parties suggest a monetary settlement sum without the other party
seeing and the algorithm generates an agreement when both enter the acceptable
range.
The EU’s ODR platform is a prominent example of current ODR applications.
The platform directs consumers’ claims against online traders to national ADR
entities. Since February 2016, over 46,000 complaints have been filed through
the platform
13 – a surprisingly small number when taking into consideration that
the EU’s Single Market accounts for 500 million consumers and 21 million small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
14 Another, often quoted example of
successful ODR is eBay’s Resolution Center, which is claimed to handle around
60 million e-commerce disputes annually.
15 eBay is an online marketplace where
the sellers list items for sale and buyers may bid for the items and thus enter into
a binding agreement with the seller for the sale of goods. As conflicts may arise
62 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology