An agent-based approach to consumer´s law dispute resolution

Buying products online results in a new type of trade which the traditional legal systems are not ready to deal with. Besides that, the increase in B2C relations led to a growing number of consumer claims and many of these are not getting a satisfactory response. New approaches that do not include traditional litigation are needed, having in consideration not only the slowness of the judicial system, but also the cost/beneficial relation in legal procedures. This paper points out to an alternative way of solving these conflicts online, using Information Technologies and Artificial Intelligence methodologies. The work here presented results in a consumer advice system, which fastens and makes easier the conflict resolution process both for consumers and for legal experts.Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) - TIARAC - Telematics and Artificial Intelligence in Alternative Conflict Resolution Project (PTDC/JUR/71354/2006

Resolving Voluntary Mental Health Treatment Disputes in the Community Setting: Benefits of and Barriers to Effective Mediation

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

The distance selling directive: consumer champion or complete irrelevance?

This paper investigates the origins, significant content, UK and EU implementation and outcomes of Directive 97/7/EC on distance selling, hereafter referred to as the Distance Selling Directive (DSD). The DSD has been implemented in national legislation by all EU Member States. In the UK this legislation was the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 2334), hereafter referred to as the CPDSR

Private Dispute Resolution in the Card Context: Structure, Reputation, and Incentives

Explosive growth in credit, debit, and other card payment systems in recent years has produced a parallel growth in private dispute resolution systems based on the web of contracts entered into by merchants, merchant acquirers, consumers, card issuers, card associations, and transaction processors. These contracts have produced legal systems based on contract and the enforcement of which rests primarily on reputational constraints. To cost-effectively resolve disputes, these private legal systems have evolved innovative procedures using resources at the lowest-possible level, including incentive-payments for producing information and rigid deadlines for parties\u27 actions. This paper describes and analyzes these legal systems and their procedures as a potential model for resolving other categories of disputes

Artificial intelligence applications in ODR: online dispute resolution: the UMCourt project

The growing use of electronic contracting urges the move of dispute resolution to online environments. Thus being, the technological element has to be considered as the “fourth party”. In this sense, software agents may well play an important role. One major issue in dispute resolution is the estimation of BATNA and of WATNA; software agents may become very useful tools in this operation, facing dispute resolution under a risk oriented approach. Having this in mind, it was developed UM COURT – based on which a concrete application, in the domain of Consumer’s Law, is presented here.Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) - TIARAC - Telematics and Artificial Intelligence in Alternative Conflict Resolution Project (PTDC/JUR/71354/2006

Private Dispute Resolution in the Card Context: Structure, Reputation, and Incentives

Explosive growth in credit, debit, and other card payment systems in recent years has produced a parallel growth in private dispute resolution systems based on the web of contracts entered into by merchants, merchant acquirers, consumers, card issuers, card associations, and transaction processors. These contracts have produced legal systems based on contract and the enforcement of which rests primarily on reputational constraints. To cost-effectively resolve disputes, these private legal systems have evolved innovative procedures using resources at the lowest-possible level, including incentive-payments for producing information and rigid deadlines for parties\u27 actions. This paper describes and analyzes these legal systems and their procedures as a potential model for resolving other categories of disputes

Loss allocation rules in the electronic payment systems: consumer protection approaches in Malaysia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America

Electronic payment systems are an important part of the electronic commerce infrastructure. However, like the conventional systems, they are also prone to the risk of fraudulent payments that impose financial losses on the participants. Therefore, it is important that the losses are fairly and properly allocated between the parties, to enable them to receive benefit from the systems.In so far as the consumer and the electronic payment issuer are concerned, the losses are commonly allocated through the terms of their contract. Since contractual loss allocation may prejudice the consumer, loss allocation rules were introduced to supplement the process of allocating the losses between them. These specifically drafted loss allocation rules are influenced by the loss allocation principles, and employ a combination of liability rules including the capped liability rule, and/or fraud-based rule and/or negligence-based rules. Apart from that, the loss allocation regimes also employ the rules governing the use of an exclusion clause or unfair contract terms to protect the consumer against unfair contractual loss allocation.It should be noted that although the loss allocation models are identical, yet their detailed rules vary from one jurisdiction to the next. Despite the differences, they share a common aim, i.e., to prescribe the rights and liabilities of the parties in relation to the losses. In particular, they provide protection to the consumer against unfair loss allocation.The success of the different loss allocation regimes in achieving the said objectives, in view of the different stature of the consumer and the issuer in terms of their knowledge and financial ability, depends, among others things on the clarity and the practicality of the rules and also the ability of the rules to induce the parties' precautionary action. More importantly, a perfect loss allocation scheme must be comprehensive, in the sense that there should not be any room left for the issuer to manoeuvre around its rules to unfairly use its contract terms to allocate the losses to the consumer. Failure of the rules to have these characteristics affects the protection of the consumer against fraudulent payment losses, hence the need for review and reform

Creating a Market for Justice; a Market Incentive Solution to Regulating the Playing Field: Judicial Deference, Judicial Review, Due Process, and Fair Play in Online Consumer Arbitration

Swindlers, purveyors of substandard products or services, and honest traders unable to perform their agreements can access the global market as easily as legitimate and capable businesses. The impersonal nature of e-commerce makes it more difficult for traders to discern a merchant or transaction that will not satisfy their expectations. This article analyzes procedural due process concerns as an element of arbitration in online dispute resolution ( ODR ) in business-to-consumer ( B2C ) e-commerce. B2C e-commerce will be worth an estimated $250 billion by the end of 2003, but one factor hindering its growth is the lack of effective dispute resolution. For reasons of cost, jurisdiction, and other problems relating to transnational litigation, courts may not be a feasible forum, thus leaving private mechanisms, such as ODR, as the primary source of dispute resolution. Existing incentives may provide for a level playing field for online arbitration in disputes between merchants; however, these incentives may be nonexistent or inadequate with regard to disputes between consumers and merchants. Swindlers, purveyors of substandard products or services, and honest traders unable to perform their agreements can access the global market as easily as legitimate and capable businesses. The impersonal nature of e-commerce makes it more difficult for traders to discern a merchant or transaction that will not satisfy their expectations. This article analyzes procedural due process concerns as an element of arbitration in online dispute resolution ( ODR ) in business-to-consumer ( B2C ) e-commerce. B2C e-commerce will be worth an estimated$250 billion by the end of 2003, but one factor hindering its growth is the lack of effective dispute resolution. For reasons of cost, jurisdiction, and other problems relating to transnational litigation, courts may not be a feasible forum, thus leaving private mechanisms, such as ODR, as the primary source of dispute resolution. Existing incentives may provide for a level playing field for online arbitration in disputes between merchants; however, these incentives may be nonexistent or inadequate with regard to disputes between consumers and merchants

Contracting in the Age of the Internet of Things: Article 2 of the UCC and Beyond

This Article analyzes the global phenomenon of the Internet of Things (“IOT”) and its potential impact on consumer contracts for the sale of goods. Recent examples of IOT products include Amazon’s Dash Replenishment Service, which allows household devices to automatically reorder goods. By 2025, the IOT is estimated to have an economic impact of as much as $11.1 trillion. To date, there are approximately fifteen billion interconnected devices, and by 2020, there will be fifty billion such devices worldwide. IOT devices will revolutionize the way that consumers shop for consumable supplies and other goods. Consumers will no longer need to log on to a company’s website or use a mobile application to purchase goods but will be able to conclude contracts for the sale of goods by using IOT devices. This Article contends that the legion of IOT data expected to be generated about consumers and their preferences will worsen preexisting information asymmetry in consumer contracts to the benefit of companies; increase the lack of proximity between consumers and the contract formation process; further encourage consumers’ failure to read and understand contract terms prior to contracting; and likely lead businesses to further take advantage of consumer ignorance and apathy by including one-sided contract terms, such as unilateral amendment provisions and terms that restrict consumer access to judicial process. Common law agency principles, e-commerce statutes, contract law, and Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 2”) are unlikely to effectively address these concerns. This Article suggests important amendments to Article 2 and argues that courts should adjust their application of existing contract law and agency principles to account for the new automatic and interface-free contracting environment that the age of the IOT will herald