This concluding chapter calls for ensuring the effective provision of consumer ADR (CADR) by making the requirement of CADR mandatory in a number of sectors where there is a high demand for CADR and to set up an effective residual forum to ensure full coverage. The residual forum can be housed in a tribunal or in a much improved small claims court - it is argued that both of these options should incorporate CADR techniques and be accessible online. Another option, and one that may be less costly and more user-friendly (and thus preferred by consumers), would be the creation of a residual CADR entity with mandatory jurisdiction. The chapter then examines the main arguments against a mandatory CADR scheme, such as the argument of floodgates of complaints driving costs up for traders, the difficulties of enforcing outcomes with reluctant traders, and the restriction to the court and thus access to justice. Lastly this chapter briefly considers a number of dispute design options that policymakers should take into consideration when improving the CADR landscape.

This chapter addresses the conflict between the restrictive and negative view often taken towards consumer arbitration and the supportive and positive view often taken towards ODR by arguing that a properly designed system of online consumer arbitration can fulfil the promise of consumer arbitration while avoiding its greatest risks. After clarifying what is meant by the term “online arbitration” and addressing the important differences that exist between commercial arbitration and consumer arbitration, this chapter examines the current regulatory framework applicable to consumer arbitration, contrasting the two dominant regulatory approaches found in the EU and the US. Moreover, this chapter discusses the distinctive and problematic features of consumer arbitration, and addresses the additional problems that can develop when consumer arbitration is undertaken in the ODR context. Lastly, this chapter considers current alternatives to online consumer arbitration and concludes by proposing four guarantees that legislators should include in order to ensure a fair and effective system of online consumer arbitration.

The imposition of legal costs on litigants who have refused a reasonable offer (i.e. one that has not been improved by a final judgment) is increasingly used as a successful leverage to contain costs and expedite the resolution of civil disputes. This is perceived to be an effective technique, which is particular to common law jurisdictions, for encouraging settlements between two litigants. This article compares the English Pt 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) on offers to settle with the equivalent rules employed in Ireland and United States, and it poses the question of why such rules are absent from the civil procedures in continental Europe. Accordingly, it examines how these procedures can operate, if at all, in arbitration and in civil law jurisdictions; this analysis is primarily undertaken with reference to the Spanish civil procedure. It is the contention of the article that while higher costs in litigation and a culture of court settlements have only triggered their adoption in common law jurisdictions, the emerging practice of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques may pave the way for embracing cost sanctions in continental Europe.

This paper considers a number of ODR case studies employed to settle disputes arising from e-commerce and offline. After describing the role of ODR, this paper examines Cybersettle; the Resolution Centre of eBay and Paypal; and its spin-off, Modria; and a number of court annexed ODR schemes operating in the UK. This paper concludes by noting that there is an institutional interest from part of the EU and the UN in collecting best practices and promoting ODR mechanisms from a top down approach.

This article evaluates the impact which the proposed European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) may have on the existing Small Claims Procedure (SCP) in Ireland. Part One reviews the present Irish Small Claims Procedure. Part Two considers the proposal for a regulation establishing a European Small Claims Procedure for the resolution of cross-border disputes and its relevance for the resolution in Ireland of small claims in cross-border disputes. The present Irish SCP is designed to deal with low cost disputes at a national level. Consequently, the resolution of small value disputes with a cross-border element such as those arising from e-commerce is untouched under the domestic SCP. In order to promote increased consumer confidence and a truly integrated common market, the European Commission has produced a proposal for the regulation of an ESCP intended to be implemented by the year 2009. The proposed ESCP is predominantly a written procedure that deals with claims under ኂ,000 in value arising in cross-border disputes, and it provides for the enforcement of decisions in any of the Member States (with the exception of Denmark) without the present need of going through the formal mutual recognition of judgements. This article discusses the challenges posed by the European Commission proposal as modified by the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. The main conclusion of this article is that the ESCP, in conjunction with Information Communication Technology (ICT) tools, have the potential to realise more efficient enforcement of the rights of European consumers. This article also argues that the effectiveness of the Commission's proposal may be hindered by its own restrictions, such as its exclusive application to cross-border disputes, its low monetary threshold and the lack of adequate provisions supporting Alternative Dispute Resolution methods such as mediation and negotiation.

In this paper we discuss if and to what extent the 2013 EU Regulation on consumer online dispute resolution (ODR) in tandem with the EU Directive on consumer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is likely to finally fulfill the expectations of ODR that policy makers and academics have had for many years. Part I examines the reasons why ODR has not yet taken off. Part II discusses previous EU initiatives that aimed to promote the use of ADR and ODR. Part III briefly examines the Directive on consumer ADR and the Regulation on consumer ODR, and it compares the EU approach with the UNCITRAL draft rules on ODR. Finally, Part IV evaluates the obstacles faced in the implementation of the EU ODR Platform, and calls for the embedding of incentives in its operation, the provision of an online negotiation tool, a connection to small claims processes, and the incorporation of adequate tools to overcome language barriers.

This paper will analyse the new EU legal framework for enforcing consumer law through various layers: public enforcement bodies, judicial mechanisms and out-of-court redress schemes. Accordingly, it will depart from a brief examination of the changes in the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation, it will then analyse the judicial options offered by small claims processes and collective redress, and lastly it will examine the new framework on out-of-court redress and the impact that it will have on three radically different redress cultures: Italy, Spain and the UK. The paper concludes arguing that the growth of out-of-court mechanisms to facilitate compliance with consumer law poses new challenges and opportunities in ensuring an adequate enforcement of EU consumer law.