EVOLUTION AND SOURCES OF LEGAL REGULATION OF ODR IN THE USA

Abstract

Introduction:the article explores the history of formation and development of online dispute resolution (ODR) in the USA. The author analyzes the basic concepts and characteristics of these technologies and gives examples of their use in the practice of private ODR providers and U.S. courts. The main sources of legal regulation of ODR in the USA are the rulings of state courts based on the ‘ODR Standards’ of international organizations, including UNCITRAL, NCTDR, ICODR, etc., as well as scientific works of American scientists and practitioners. Purpose: to provide an insight into the emergence and development of online dispute resolution (ODR) in the practice of private ODR providers and the practice of U.S. courts by analyzing court reports, international acts, and academic sources. Methods: theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic; empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation; special scientific methods such as legal-dogmatic and the method of interpretation of legal norms. Results: the study found that there is currently no legal definition of ODR in the United States; governmental bodies (including courts) and private ODR pro-viders rely on their own vision and understanding of ODR, using non-binding documents from international organiza-tions as well as academic studies developed by U.S. scholars and practitioners. There is also no common doctrinal defi-nition of ODR. Conclusions: 1) The U.S. National Center for State Courts, on its website, defines judicial (court-related) ODR as ‘a public facing digital space in which parties can convene to resolve their dispute or case’. 2) Scholars define judicial ODR as a method of ADR (alternative dispute resolution) aimed at resolving civil disputes using online plat-forms attached to a court rather than face-to-face hearings, mediation, or arbitration. 3) Barriers to the use of ODR in U.S. courts are: a) continuing transition from paper to electronic documents; b) complicated registration on ODR plat-forms; c) lack of ‘intuitive’ options for working with documents on the platform and finalizing the ODR process; d) lack of reference documents. 4) The experience of U.S. state courts in implementing ODR pilot programs as well as non-binding documents of international (UNCITRAL, ICODR) and U.S. ODR standards compliance organizations (NCTDR, ABA) can be used to improve Russian legal acts.