Enforcement of the Results of Online Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods An Analytical Study on Voluntary Enforcement Strategies

Subject Areas : International Legal Research

Reza Maboudi Neishabouri ¹ , SeyedAlireza Rezaee ²

1 - aAssistant Professor of Private Law Department, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
2 - PhD Student of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

Received: 2022-02-18 Accepted : 2023-04-04 Published : 2023-03-21

Keywords: ", Online Dispute Resolution", E-Commerce", Voluntary Enforcement of Results of Dispute Resolution", Trustmark Scheme", Rating System",

Abstract :

Background and Purpose: There are ambiguities and legal issues regarding online dispute resolution methods due to their specific characteristics and their occurrence in cyberspace. One of the challenges with these methods is how they enforce,. In addition to insufficient enforcement support about the results of online dispute resolution in said methods, it should be noted that ODR is often used in e-commerce lawsuits and the main feature of these lawsuits is their high number and low value. Therefore, the use of traditional enforcement methods, which requires resorting to court, is not logical in such cases, and the final documents of ODR should be enforced in accordance with their characteristics and without the need to courts. In this regard, solutions have been adopted in the field of ecommerce that with emphasis to the desire of the parties to maintain their reputation and market share, the results of online dispute resolution enforced by them voluntarily. The mentioned strategies, "Trustmark Scheme", "Rating System", "Blacklisting System" and "Punitive Measures", have been studied and analyzed in this article.Findings and Results: Finally the present study has concluded that to develop ODR, support for strategies to encourage voluntary enforcement of the results of these methods is very important, but this goal can not be achieved without ratifying suitable regulations, because trust is the most important factor in the impact of these methods and to increase the trust of individuals and business actors, appropriate laws should be enacted.

References:

- ابوترابی زارچی، محمد حسن. (1386). داوری برخط و مسائل حقوقی آن. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران.

- السان، مصطفی. (1385). جنبه‌های حقوقی داوری آن‌لاین. دو فصلنامه علمی حقوق تطبیقی، 11(58)، 106 – 79.

https://law.mofidu.ac.ir/article_46833.html

- السان، مصطفی. (1391). حقوق تجارت الکترونیکی. سمت.

- باقرزاده، احد. (1383)، ضرورت رویکرد نظری حقوق مصرف‌کننده به حقوق بشر. مجله حقوقی دادگستری، (46)، 172 – 144.

https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/484359

- بدری زاده، سیما؛ توسلی نائینی، منوچهر. (1390). شناسایـی و اجرای آراء داوری تجـاری بین‌المللی صادره در فضای مجازی. دو فصلنامه حقوق تطبیقی، 7(2)، 146 – 123.

https://www.sid.ir/paper/219102/fa

- توکلی، زهرا؛ طبائی، مهشیدسادات. (1394). اعتبار حقوقی داوری اینترنتی در تجارت بین‌المللی. فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی آزاد، 8(28)، 122 – 87.

https://journals.iau.ir/article_525140.html

- داراب‌پور، مهراب. (1387)، بررسی ماهوی حقوق مصرف‌کنندگان در حقوق انگلستان و ضرورت اصلاح کاستی‌های حمایتی از آنان در حقوق ایران. فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، 11(48)، 63 – 9.

https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1222564

- رهنمون، رئوف؛ شیخ الاسلامی اسعد. (1390). حمایت از حقوق مصرف‌کننده و قلمرو آن در فقه شافعیان و امامیه. مجله فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، 44(1)، 97 – 77.

https://www.sid.ir/paper/198515/fa

- معبودی نیشابوری، رضا؛ رضائی، سیدعلیرضا. (1399). تحلیل دعاوی مستثنی‌شده از قلمرو کنوانسیون سنگاپور 2019 با مطالعۀ تطبیقی در حقوق ایران و فقه امامیه. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 11(20)، 194 – 169.

https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1726559

- یوسف زاده، احمد؛ باریکلو، علیرضا. (1396)، نقش دعاوی گروهی در حمایت از مصرف‌کننده. دو فصلنامه دانشنامه حقوق اقتصادی، 24(11)، 24 – 1.

https://lawecon.um.ac.ir/article_29657.html

 

- Akerlof, G. (1995). The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. In S. Estrin, & A. Marin, Essential Readings in Economics. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited.

- Anderson, E., & Simester, D. (2014). Reviews Without a Purchase Low Ratings, Loyal Customers and Deception. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3):249-269.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276034551

- Arbel, Y. (2019). Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer Markets. Wake Forest Law Review, 54(5), 1239-1304. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3239995

- Centeno, R., Hermoso, R., & Fasli, M. (2015). On the inaccuracy of numerical ratings: dealing with biased opinions in social networks. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(4), 809-825.

https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v17y2015i4d10.1007_s10796-014-9526-1.html

- Cortes, P. (2010). Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union. New York: Routledge.

- Cortés, P. (2015). A New Regulatory Framework For Extra-Judicial Consumer Redress: Where We Are And How To Move Forward. Legal Studies, 35(1), 114-141.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lest.12048

- Cortés, P. (2016). The New Regulatory Framework For Consumer Dispute Resolution. London: Oxford University Press.

- Cortés, P. (2017). The Law Of Consumer Redress In An Evolving Digital Market: Upgrading From Alternative To Online Dispute Resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Cortes, P., & de la Rosa, F. (2013). Building a Global Redress System for Low-Value Cross-Border Disputes. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 62(2), 407-440.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43301567

- Cortes, P., & Lodder, A. R. (2014). Consumer Dispute Resolution Goes Online: Reflections On The Evolution Of European Law For Out-Of-Court Redress. Maastricht Journal Of European And Comparative Law, 21, 14-38.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2414098

- Dellarocas, C., & Wood, C. A. (2008). Sound Of Silence In Online Feedback: Estimating Trading Risks In The Presence Of Reporting Bias. Manage Sci, 54(3), 460–476.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-18985-003

- Duca, D., Louis, F., Rule, C., & Cressman, B. (2015). Lessons And Best Practices For Designers Of Fast Track, Low Value, High Volume Global E-Commerce Odr Systems. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, 4(1), 242-289.

https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol4/iss1/13/

- Duca, D., Louis, F., Rule, C., & Loebl, Z. (2012). Facilitating Expansion Of Cross-Border E-Commerce Developing A Global Online Dispute Resolution Systems (Lessons Derived From Existing Odr Systems-Work Of The United Nations Commission On International Trade Law). Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper, 1(1), 59-85.

https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol1/iss1/4/

- eBay. (2022). eBay Sales Reports. Retrieved February 17, 2022, https://pages.ebay.com/sellerinformation/sellingresources/salesreports.html

- Hanriot, M. (2015). Online Dispute Resolution (Odr) as a Solution to Cross Border Consumer Disputes: The Enforcement of Outcomes. McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2, 1-22.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2811195

- Josang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A Survey Of Trust And Reputation Systems For Online Service Provision. Decision Support Systems, 43(2), 618-644.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923605000849

- Kaufmann-Kohler, G. (2005). Online Dispute Resolution And Its Significance For International. Paris: International Chamber of Commerce.

- Koulu, R. (2016). Blockchains And Online Dispute Resolution: Smart Contracts As An Alternative To Enforcement. SCRIPTed-A J Law Technol Soc, 13(1), 40-69. https://script-ed.org/?p=2669

- Kuwabara, K. O. (2015). Do reputation systems undermine trust? Divergent Effects Of Enforcement Type On Generalized Trust And Trustworthiness. American Journal of Sociology, 12(5), 1390–1428.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/681231

- Mayzlin, D., Dover, Y., & Chevalier, J. (2014). Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation Of Online Review Manipulation. Am Econ Rev, 104(8), 2421–2455.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.104.8.2421

- Nicuesa, A. (2018). Reputational Feedback Systems and Consumer Rights: Improving the European Online Redress System. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 5(1-2), 122-145.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332146789

- Nosko, C., & Tadelis, S. (2015). The Limits of Reputation in Platform Markets: An Empirical Analysis and Field Experiment. National Bureau of Economic Research.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20830

- Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R., Swanson, J., & Lockwood, K. (2006). The Value Of Reputation On Ebay: A Controlled Experiment. Perimental Economics, (9), 79 – 101.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10683-006-4309-2

- Rietjens, B. (2006). Trust and reputation on eBay: towards a legal framework for feedback intermediaries. Inf Commun Technol Law, 15(1), 55–78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233289151

- Rule, C., & Singh, H. (2011). ODR and Online Reputation System: Maintaining Trust and Accuracy Through Effective Redress. Hague: Eleven International Publishing.

- Scultz, A. (2018). Building On Oarb Attributes In Pursuit Of Justice. In M. Piers, & C. Aschauer, Arbitration in the Digital Age: The Brave New World Of Arbitration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Solovay, N., & Reed, C. K. (2003). The Internet And Dispute Resolution: Untangling the Web. New York: ‎ Law Journal Press.

- Thornburg, E. G. (2000). Going Private: Technology, Due Process, And Internet Dispute Resolution. University of California at Davis Law Review, (34), 151-220.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228221287

- Uncitral. (2013). Online Dispute Resolution For Cross-Border Electronic Commerce Transactions: Overview Of Private Enforcement Mechanisms. United Nations. Vienna: Uncitral Working Group III. https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.124

- Wang, F. F. (2009). Online Dispute Resolution Technology, Management And Legal Practice From An International Perspective. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

- Zheng, J. (2020). Online Resolution of E-commerce Disputes Perspectives from the European Union, the UK, and China. Shanghai: Springer.