Jurisdiction II: Global Networks/Local Rules
September 11-12, 2000
San Francisco, CA
D R A F T
Online Alternative Dispute Resolution: An Issues Primer
Professor and Associate Director
Center for Law, Commerce & Technology
University of Washington School of Law, USA
[Working Draft circulated for comment only - please do not distribute
Prepared by the Center for Law, Commerce & Technology
University of Washington School of Law
for the National Association of Attorneys General
(c) 2000 Center for Law, Commerce & Technology
Over the past three years, the explosion of electronic commerce has left
many in the legal profession at a loss as to how to react to the new economy
Every form of industry, from the auto industry, to the clothing industry,
to the legal profession is being affected by this new medium for conducting
To date, lawyers, legislators, policymakers and industry representatives
have struggled with the issue of how existing laws should (or should not)
function in the amorphous world of cyberspace. Consumers and business alike
have struggled to figure out what law governs Internet transactions and
whether existing rules concerning intellectual property, contracts and
consumer protection are valid in an e-commerce context. Another problem
that arises in cyberspace is in which jurisdiction a consumer or business
would seek a remedy with respect to an Internet-based transaction. Online
contracting and e-commerce creates a global marketplace for consumers.
However, consumers can ill afford to pursue their legal remedies in an
The use of nonjudicial means for dispute resolution may provide a
solution to this problem. This report focuses on the possibility of using
the Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") as a means for dealing with
consumer complaints and disputes connected to Internet transactions.
Additionally, this report analyzes the use of the Internet itself as a
medium for such dispute resolution. For the sake of consistency, the term
Online ADR will be used when referring to this concept. While Online ADR
may be a solution for consumers faced with the daunting task of seeking
remedies for cross border Internet disputes, one must also consider the
validity of existing complaint resolution procedures. Existing mechanisms
such as credit card charge backs or informal complaint resolution conducted
directly with merchants may be adequate for a large number of consumer
An ancillary question is who should provide Online ADR? Some of the
possible actors include:
- private for-profit companies,
- industry trade associations,
- existing arbitration or mediation service providers (who deal with
disputes in the non-virtual world);
- international organizations or
- government agencies (state or federal).
This report provides policymakers with background information they will
summarize the current status of Online ADR and the various models that
exist. It is hoped that this information will aid decision makers in
- Whether Online AFR is desirable for resolution of commerce disputes
(business to consumer and business to business)?
- Which entities are best placed to provide Online ADR
- What type of model/structure is optimal for various types on online
- Who should allocate resources for these efforts (consumers, government,
This report explores the costs, benefits and possible efficiencies of
Online ADR, in particular with respect to the types of consumer complaints
currently being lodged with state attorneys general's Offices throughout the
country. The report begins with a discussion of the current treatment of
Internet related complaints by States Attorneys Generals, and is followed by
explanation of Online ADR as a concept. The report then moves on to a
discussion of some of the key reasons for adopting and promoting Online ADR
processes. Finally, we canvass some of the major Online ADR providers in
order to provide an overview of the various approaches currently in use or
I. Attorneys General's treatment of Internet Related Complaints
Note: This section is still in progress as we await responses from
additional states and hope to create summaries and a table of current
approaches to resolution of Internet-related consumer complaints.
The state attorneys general and corresponding state consumer protection
bureaus are focal points where consumers currently direct complaints and
queries with respect to Internet transactions. Keeping this fact in mind,
state attorneys general need to consider whether it is desirable to:
- refer consumers to existing Online ADR providers;
- work with industry to propagate new models for consumer complaint
resolution and/or Online ADR; or
- take on a role at the state level as a provider of Online ADR in
addition to or as an alternative to the proprietary services that are
The Center for Law, Commerce and Technology is currently in the process
of corresponding with the 50 States Attorneys General regarding their
treatment use approaches to online consumer complaints, and specifically
their use of Online ADR. To date, far the Center has received responses
from ten of the fifty states.1 It is
expected that most offices will respond during the summer months of 2000.
It is clear that Attorneys General throughout the United States
recognizes the growing consumer protection issues associated with the
Internet. The State of Virginia provides us with some interesting data.
Their Attorney Generals Office received 213 Internet-related complaints in
1997, 64 in 1998, 87 in 1999 and 45 as of May 23, 2000.2 Not surprisingly the majority of Internet related
complaints in Virginia have been against Internet Service Providers.
(Virginia is home to many of the Nation's biggest ISPs such as AOL.)3 Their Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) received 16
Internet related complaints in 1997 (15 against ISPs, 1 concerning the sale
of a product), 53 in 1998 (20 against ISPs, 26 concerning online auctions, 7
concerning the sale of products), 115 in 1999 (71 against ISPs, 43
concerning online auctions, 1 concerning sale of a product), and 59 in 2000
(36 against ISPs, 23 against Internet Auctions).4
At present, the various states are taking different approaches to
consumer complaints and inquiries related to Internet transactions. The
majority of states fall into one of three categories. In category A, are
states, which while aware of the unique problems of Internet complaints, are
not currently participating in specific efforts to address these problems.
Category B, is made up of states that are taking awareness of Internet
related complaints and allow consumers to use their web sites to provide
information and file complaints online. Category C states are those states
taking the most proactive stance. These states have web sites dedicated to
Internet related problems and complaints. In addition several of these
states either have or are in the process of establishing Online ADR
processes. Of those states responding to our survey, two are in category A,
eight fall into category B, and 0 are in category C.
Two leaders in online consumer protection are the States of Washington,
and New York. The State of Washington Attorney General's Office has created
a new High Tech Unit of its Consumer Protection Office to address Internet
crimes and disputes. The Washington State Attorney General's web site
currently allows consumers to file disputes online and will ultimately allow
consumers to have their complaints resolved online.5 The New York Attorney General's Office already has a
mediation process that allows a complaint to be filed online, and allows the
complainant to communicate with the Office via email.6 In 1999 the New York Attorney General, Eliot
Spitzer, committed his office to protecting citizens from Internet fraud and
established a special unit dedicated to online enforcement; Attorney General
Spitzer estimated his office would receive nearly 2500 Internet related
complaints in 1999 alone.7 Initiatives such as
the two established by Washington and New York may serve as models for other
II.What is Online ADR?
Online ADR, like its parent traditional ADR, consists of a variety of
methods such as arbitration, mediation, and mini-trials, that seek to
resolve disputes by means other than litigation. Unlike traditional ADR,
Online ADR utilizes the Internet as a means to more efficiently engage
parties in non-litigious dispute resolution. Online ADR resolves disputes
by harnessing computer-networking technology to bring parties together in a
dialogue that is hosted by a third party service provider.
Typically the Online ADR process begins when a claimant registers with an
Online ADR Provider, such as clickNsettle.com or Squaretrade.com.(see Figure 1)
The ADR Provider then uses the information provided by the claimant to
contact the defendant party and invite them to participate in Online ADR.
If the defendant accepts the invitation, they will then file a response to
the claimant's complaint. From this point on the various ADR Providers take
on different approaches. Some have developed proprietary software that
allows parties to engage in negotiation of monetary sums without the
participation of a negotiator or mediator.
Other service providers have taken a more hands on approach that provides
for more traditional mediation services across email and interactive web
sites. Still others employ variations of these two methods. Another area
of difference is the level of enforceability of a settlement. While most
online settlements are not legally binding and enforceable (i.e., a party
may still seek resolution in a court of law after engaging in the Online ADR
process), some ADR providers require or encourage parties to enter into a
binding settlement contract. Of course, such a settlement is only
enforceable to the extent allowed by state contract law.
Figure 1.: Typical Online Alternative Dispute Resolution Process
In the future, the development of other forms of dispute resolution are
likely, as dot.coms, governmental agencies and individuals realize the power
and relative ease of resolving disputes online. As we begin the shift to
broadband technology, the possibility for incorporating real-time audio and
video into the existing framework may lead to more powerful dispute
resolution tools that could potentially increase the power of Online
Why Online ADR?
Online ADR can play an important role in bridging the gap between the
Internet and our existing laws. In particular, Online ADR minimizes the
jurisdictional problems inherent in Internet transactions. The relatively
low costs of Online ADR may provide a forum for claims of low monetary value
that would otherwise not have a forum. As transactions involving micro
payments on the Internet increase (e.g., buying a news article or a
horoscope on line for a nominal fee), the number of claims of small value
will similarly grow. ADR, in general, may create a more real level of
accountability for private individuals transacting on intermediary web
sites, such as auction sites. Online ADR addresses the need for an
appropriate forum for international disputes that would otherwise not be
adjudicated or would be extremely expensive or time consuming. While
several of these issues have increased in importance due to the growth of
business to consumer (B2C) and business to business (B2B) Internet
transactions, Online ADR is may be equally attractive for settling
traditional (non-Internet) disputes.
Attorneys General and consumer protection agencies throughout the country
have seen a tremendous influx in the number of consumer complaints
connected to the advent of e-commerce in 1997. Unfortunately, many of
these complaints may never be resolved. One reason some of those disputes
have not been addressed has to do with the fact that one of the parties to
the dispute is often outside of a state's jurisdiction. Traditionally a
company or individual being sued outside of its state's jurisdiction might
take significant steps to avoid such a lawsuit. The costs associated with
establishing representation in a foreign state are often significant enough
to warrant such a response. The Internet is increasing the number of
products being sold and bartered across state lines, with the result that
cross-border disputes are becoming increasingly more commonplace.
- Elimination of Jurisdictional
The Online ADR process provides a dispute resolution medium that does not
depend on the exercise of jurisdiction in a forum state. Companies and
individuals are given incentives to resolve their disputes. Certainly such
an interest is most commonly present where an ongoing relationship is at a
premium.8 The process is dependent on
extending an invitation to a defendant party to engage in communication.
While this process requires the acceptance of such an invitation, it is most
often in both parties' best interest resolve the dispute in the
>least expensive and time-consuming manner. The
Internet serves this process very well because it does not require the
physical presence of both parties and the arbitrator or mediator. The
discussion can be carried on at speeds close to real time and the costs
associated with legal representation, travel and lodging can be minimized.
Furthermore, the physical separation may actually benefit the parties.
Physically separated parties are more likely to keep their cool and
negotiate effectively because a large part of the emotional element involved
with face to face negotiation is removed. Thus it is possible to bring
parties to a conflict to a resolution without the exercise of jurisdiction
on a foreign corporation or resident.
- More attractive for disputes with small monetary
A second problem associated with many Internet transactions is that
disputes are often over items of relatively little monetary value. Disputes
over goods of such little value do not lend themselves to being litigated in
court because of the high costs of litigation. As a result, consumers have
relatively little recourse when challenging disputes of low monetary value.
This type of dispute most commonly arises, but is not limited to, smaller,
less developed e-businesses, as well as Internet transactions between
private parties. At large e-businesses, such disputes are often handled
internally by a company's customer service center.
Online ADR mechanisms may provide an effective medium for resolving
disputes of low monetary value. Generally, Online ADR providers are
inviting resolution of claims regardless of the size of the claim. In fact,
some Online ADR providers do not even charge for their service, thus the
value of the claim is effectively of no importance9. While most ADR Providers do charge a fee, the
prices are most often very reasonable and start for as little as $36.50 for
an item up to $2000 (Onlinemediators.com). The presence of Online ADR
mechanisms accredited by States Attorneys General might provide an avenue to
contest smaller disputes and remove those disputes from Attorneys General's
consumer protection caseload. Alternatively, the states might consider
creating and investing in their own Online ADR mechanisms, at least for
informal complaint resolution, as a way of speeding up the complaint
resolution process, and allowing for the ease and convenience for consumers
and merchants alike, of participating in the dispute resolution process from
their home or business office.
- Auction sites - Dispute resolution when Internet
business as the intermediary
Consumer fraud at intermediary sites, such as auction sites, is one of
the areas prone to a greater number of disputes and consumer fraud.
Intermediary web sites are companies that provide a forum for interaction
and transaction between members of a community such as eBay.com. The
majority of these disputes are not between companies and individuals, but
rather between private individuals.
Consumers that participate in this type of commerce expose themselves to
a heightened level of risk due to the relative anonymity of the individual
making a sale. The occurrence of disputes arising out of misrepresentation,
or non-delivery of a product is extremely high in this type of transaction.
Many of the Internet related complaints received by Attorneys General take
this form. Unfortunately the majority of buyers and sellers at
auction/intermediary sites do not have the wherewithal to contest such a
claim in court, but an online mediation might serve as a much better
alternative. With their low costs, simple processes and human interaction
even when hundreds of miles apart, Online ADR providers present a possible
alternative to the court system which would generally be inaccessible for
this type of dispute.10
- Lack of clear contract and consumer protection
The lack of clear legal rules in the international e-commerce arena is
another reason why Internet companies are embracing Online ADR. As
electronic commerce grows, borders between nations are blurred. Thus the
application of one country's law as compared. that of another, or the
application of private international law can lead to very complex
jurisdictional and conflict of law issues. E-businesses will continue to
expand their markets into the international arena, and will face consumer
disputes from a multiplicity of jurisdictions.
In sum, issues of jurisdiction, disputes with low monetary value and the
frequency of complaints involving Internet intermediaries are likely to be
exacerbated in the international arena. Online ADR Providers allow
individuals from across the world to settle disputes in one meeting place
even while being in opposite ends of the globe and have the ability to
address these issues in a manner not possible by traditional litigation.
The flexibility of the process means that participants do not have to rely
strictly on the rule of law. Rather they may rely on understanding each
other as people, and work more effectively toward an amicable solution that
bridges legal, cultural and contractual divides.
- Recent example of intervention guidelines that
include Online ADR
Although still in its early stages, Online ADR is proving to be a viable
dispute resolution proposal not only for the public, but also for the
industry. As noted above, a group of major multinational companies with
significant Internet presence, recently unveiled its own proposed consumer
protection guidelines that include the adoption of an international system
of Online ADR.11 The guidelines were
presented at a recent FTC workshop, and were proposed by industry leaders
such as America Online, AT&T, Dell, IBM and Microsoft. These companies
recognize the value that online consumer safety brings to their companies,
and recognize that establishing an international system of Online ADR
addresses some consumer fears about accountability. The proposal calls for
any company signing on to it to abide by a set of guidelines, including:
full disclosure of the terms of sale, opportunity to review a transaction,
and disclosure of all costs involved in the transaction including
The proposal has not received widespread approval. For instance, the
plan does not fail to address what if any laws will apply internationally,
nor does it provide for a review of non-B2C transactions.13 Thus transactions arising out of auction sites,
which currently make up the majority of consumer complaints, are not
addressed by this proposal. While some consumer advocates have criticized
the plan, it is important nonetheless, that industry has recognized the
need for effective consumer complaint resolution in the global marketplace.
Alternatives to Online ADR
Certainly there are alternative methods to dispute resolution other than
Online ADR. These include credit card charge back mechanisms, complaint
resolution mechanisms established by merchants, consumer complaints to state
attorneys general offices, consumer protection agencies, small claims court,
and litigation. Consumers are free to utilize any one of these methods of
dispute resolution, but as with all options certain drawbacks do exist.
For example credit card mechanisms generally take a long period of time
and do not typically utilized cooperation between the consumer and the
merchant to reach a resolution. Rather the process requires an expensive
investigation on the part of the credit card company. Complaint resolution
mechanisms offered by merchants may be an intelligent alternative.
SquareTrade.com began as such a service. A problem with this approach may
be the vastly different approaches taken by one merchant as compared with
another, as well as the lack of accountability of an in-house service.
Complaints to Attorneys Generals offices and consumer protection agencies
have traditionally been a preferred method of resolving disputes. This
method may not be the most effective online. In the current ongoing survey
of the 50 states Attorneys General's Offices by the authors of this report
at the University of Washington's Center for Law, Commerce and Technology,
the majority of AGs have yet to seriously address Internet related
complaints. While most have some experience with consumer complaints of
this nature, states have been slow to allocate funds specifically to
Internet complaints. Yet the experience Attorneys General do have with
existing channels of Online ADR may prove to be a means to create fairness
and effective consumer protection in the Online ADR context.
Small claims procedures and litigation has been traditional method of
resolving most transactional disputes. Unfortunately, as previously
discussed traditional litigation does not lend itself to Internet
transaction due to its high costs and the existing congestion of the court
system. Furthermore, while small claims courts often provide a venue for
disputes of smaller amounts, the ubiquitous nature of the Internet does not
lend itself well to this venue. A merchant in London is not likely to show
up in a Seattle municipal small claims court. Online ADR may be a proxy for
small claims courts - creating, in essence, virtual small claims courts for
citizens from multiple jurisdictions.
Thus while existing complaint resolution mechanisms, present viable
options for many types of transactions, they may be less well equipped to
handle Internet complaints for which Online ADR may be a viable alternative.
Even if traditional mechanisms continue to provide an avenue for
some consumer complaints, the main issue is whether online ADR can provide a
needed supplement to the existing menu of options.
Survey of Online Alternative Dispute Resolution Providers
The following is a representative sample of the various ADR Providers of
Online ADR. The sample is meant to present the range of services and
methods utilized by Online ADR providers. While some ADR Providers have
developed well thought out and organized Online ADR processes, others have
only rather loosely organized processes that are still in the development
The various ADR Providers have different origins, which may affect their
methods of dispute resolution. For instance, those initiatives from the
public sector, and academia tend to lack proprietary technology that
contributes to the dispute resolution process. On the other hand, privately
funded initiatives have taken to utilizing and developing technology that
contributes to the process. Furthermore, some ADR Providers are focussed on
one or two specific types of transactions, whereas others tend to address a
broader range of disputes. Some ADR Providers have developed processes that
are geared especially toward one type of claim, for instance insurance, or
domain name dispute resolution. Others have less focussed approaches that
address a variety of disputes.
Generally, all Online ADR providers fall into one of four categories or a
combination thereof. The categories are Arbitration, Mediation,
Negotiation, and so-called "Peer Pressure" services. (see Data Chart 1) Arbitration services actually decide cases
brought before them. Generally, the parties have agreed by contract to be
bound by the decision. Mediation services are generally designed to
facilitate communication and cooperation between parties. The services
utilize email or some other form of proprietary communication software to
allow communication between the parties and the mediator. Online
Negotiation services are currently the most automated Online ADR services
and are most often applied in the insurance claims settlement arena. These
services rely on proprietary software that accepts offers and demands; once
the parties offer and demand are within a certain range the case settles.
Parties to a negotiation have generally agreed to be bound by the negotiated
sum and thus are generally precluded from seeking relief in the courts.
Peer Pressure services are a child of the Internet. Traditionally when
individuals have been upset with the quality of product or services, they
have turned to mass media to tell their story and create negative press
about a particular company. The Internet is the ultimate way for private
individuals to make their complaints public thus encouraging companies to
reach a resolution with them before such a disclosure. Companies using this
approach generally use it as an incentive in conjunction with an online
Chart 1: Categorization of Online
||X || || ||X
|| || ||X ||
||X || || ||
|| ||X || ||
|| || ||X ||
|Disputes.org / eResolution.ca
||X || || ||
||X ||X || ||X
|| || ||X ||X
|| ||X || ||
|| ||X || ||
|| ||X || ||
|| ||X || ||
|| || ||X ||
|| || ||X ||
|| ||X || ||
||X || || ||
||X || || ||
Currently Online ADR providers use a wide range of fee structures,
although generally the fees are less expensive than traditional litigation.
There is no one fee structure that appears to be dominant, although it is
common for companies to employ a filing fee, a service fee, as well as a
settlement fee. Some companies skip one of these, but most do not employ a
single sum fee. Several companies, such as Webdispute.com and
Onlinemediators, have developed scaled fees that are dependent on the
amount in controversy.
Response Time and Caseloads
While the courts face heavy caseload, which often means that a
particular case may not be heard for months, many Online ADR providers are
able to settle disputes within a matter of days. For example
Squaretrade.com settles most disputes within 10 to 14 days.15 Certainly, Online ADR is heavily dependent upon
the response time of the parties involved, and thus the time required to
resolve a dispute is often more dependent on the parties' response times
than a back log of the system. Although there is currently no independent
literature on the caseload of Online ADR providers, no provider appears to
be at their maximum capacity. Currently almost every ADR Provider points to
the efficiency of their system as a reason for using Online ADR rather than
the court system.
The credentials of arbitrators and mediators are essential to
establishing a trustworthy online arbitration or mediation service.
Although standards for traditional mediators and arbitrators do exist16, no industry standard for online mediators is
currently being used. As previously mentioned a coalition of industry
partners recently unveiled a proposal for an international dispute
resolution process.17 Although details of
this plan have yet to be ironed out, it is likely to include standards for
Presently arbitrator and mediator standards are established the
individual ADR Providers. While some ADR Providers do not explicitly
disclose how their mediators are chosen, nor what standards they must meet,
Disputes.org and Onlinemediators have been with respect to their selection
methodology. Disputes.org publishes a list of law professors, and lawyers
that they use as arbitrators and allows the parties weigh in on which
arbitrators work on a particular case.18
Onlinemediators not only set up standards for its mediators, but also
requires that they operate according to the Model Standards of Practice for
Mediators of the American Bar Association. Certainly this is one area where
disclosure and regulation will be key to the success of the Online ADR
industry. Without the adoption of a uniform set of standards for online
mediators or arbitrators, Online ADR is less likely to become a legitimate
alternative to the courts. As the ADR Providers become more established,
this will certainly become an issue they will all have to address.
The survey below addresses the characteristics of each ADR Provider and
catalogues the variety of approaches currently available.
Better Business Bureau Online (BBB Online)19
The Better Business Bureau Online recently opened up its online dispute
resolution service. The BBB Online is backed by 86 years of experience of
the Better Business Bureau's involvement in self-regulation and alternative
dispute resolution. Their services are now available online for consumers
with online privacy complaints against both BBB Online program participants
or non-program participants.20
BBB Online is one of the most well developed Online ADR web sites and
has extensive procedural requirements for processing a dispute. The
resolution process begins with a consumer contracting the Dispute Resolution
Intake Center at which point a claim must meet a series of eligibility
requirements to move forward21.
Before a claim can progress, a consumer must demonstrate that they have
made a good faith effort to settle the complaint. Once this prerequisite is
met, a consumer submits a description of the complaint as well as any
correspondence with the merchant in question. The respondent is then
contacted and asked to respond within 15 days. The response is the
forwarded to the complainant, excluding any confidential information. If
the complainant does not respond within ten days the PPRS, the body that
decides the case, may then take up the case and come to a decision.
If the claimant files a response, a respondent is given ten days to file
a supplemental response. One a response is filed or the ten days have
expired the PPRS then takes up the case. A PPRS decision results
in either no corrective action, corrective action, or an appeal by the
respondent. If an appeal is filed its decision is final, and
non-compliance with the decision will result in a forwarding of the case to
the relevant governmental agency.
clickNsettle.com is a wholly owned subsidiary of NAM (National
Arbitration and Mediation), a national provider of arbitration and mediation
services and electronic case management software. It is the self-proclaimed
world leader in electronic dispute resolution, and seeks to resolve disputes
with a monetary settlement quickly and inexpensively. clickNsettle.com
addresses all kinds of disputes.
The process begins with one party registering and providing information
regarding whether they are the plaintiff or defendant, a general description
of the dispute, contact information for the adverse party, and an initial
monetary demand (if they are the plaintiff) or offer (if they are the
defendant). The other party is then invited to negotiate.
Who may file a complaint?
Anyone with an online dispute that sets up an account with
clickNsettle.com may have a dispute resolved.
As opposed to other Online ADR sites, clickNsettle.com utilizes a fully
interactive web site to settle disputes.23 One
party submits their dispute and the amount of their initial offer or demand.
The other party responds with their offer or demand. (clickNsettle.com calls
a submitted dispute a "case"). Either party may submit new demands and/or
offers at any time for a period of 60 days. All offers and demands are
"blind". Neither party knows the amount of the other party's offer or
demand. If the last demand is ever within 30% of the last offer, the case
will settle for the midpoint of the offer and demand.
Offers and demands must follow an established framework. Each new offer
must increase by a minimum of 5%. Each new demand must decrease by a minimum
of 5%. This is intended to promote good faith negotiating. All figures
submitted are blind to the opposing party, and therefore the only number
shown is the other party's actual bid amount. Either party may terminate a
case at any time. Cases not settled will expire after sixty days.
The case will settle if one of the following occurs:
||The plaintiff's demand comes within 30% of
the defendant's offer, in which case the case settles for the midpoint
of the offer and demand.
|Case Settles for:
||The plaintiff's demand is below the
defendant's offer, in which case the case settles for demand.
|Case Settles for:
In order to negotiate on clickNsettle.com you must have an approved
account or provide credit card information. Corporations that are legally
registered in the United States may apply for a credit account with
clickNsettle.com. All other users of the system will be required to provide
credit card information at the time they submit or respond to a case.
The submitting party pays a $15.00 submission fee to enter a case into
the system. Payment of the submission fee allows the submitting party to
enter their initial offer or demand at no-charge.
For each offer or demand entered during the first 20 days of the
Negotiation Period each party pays $10.00 per offer or demand. For each
offer or demand entered during the next 20 days of the Negotiation Period,
each party pays $15.00 per offer or demand. For each offer or demand
entered during the last 20 days of the Negotiation Period, each party pays
$20.00 per offer or demand.
If the case settles for less than $10,000, each party pays a $100.00
settlement fee. If the case settles for $10,000 or more, each party pays a
$200.00 settlement fee.
clickNsettle.com fees are billed to the parties' accounts or credit cards
upon settlement, expiration or termination of a case. All fees are payable
in US Dollars. Finally a detailed invoice is sent via US Mail.
Parties to a clickNsettle.com dispute must agree to be bound by any
settlement reached. Any settlement, therefore, serves as a bar to any
further claim or cause of action relating to or arising out of the facts and
circumstances of the subject case. The claimant agrees to furnish the
defendant with a legal release and thus agrees not to sue the defendant in a
court of law unless the defendant fails to pay settled amount. In the event
that a settlement is not reached, the parties are free to pursue traditional
Cyberarbitration.com provides online arbitration and dispute resolution.
The site focuses on domain name dispute resolution as well as general cyber
dispute resolution. The Cyberarbitration.com process begins with the
signing of a Cyberarbitration Agreement. The parties must then
place a deposit to initiate the dispute. When the funds are received a
cyberarbitrator is appointed to the case, and the parties file
claims and counterclaims along with the necessary documents with the
arbitrator. Generally evidence is presented electronically online. If
agreed upon by both parties, a personal hearing is held. After such a
hearing a cyberaward is granted and an agreement over the
cyberarbitration is signed.
Cybercourt.org is a German site providing online dispute resolution. It
targets disputes arising from online activity including online banking,
teleservices, and insurance claims. The service provided is mediation.
Cybercourt is a voluntary process that begins with one party submitting
a case concerning an online activity. For the claim to proceed, the
opposing party must agree to resolve the dispute via Cybercourt. An
interesting aspect of Cybercourt is that it provides the possibility for the
parties to remain anonymous.
Who may participate?
The process may be initiated by anyone who has a case concerning an
The process begins with a complaint that is filed via email. Subsequent
communications take place either through Internet or teleconferencing.
Cybercourt then contacts the opposing party and asks them to participate in
dispute resolution. A Cybercourt judge is then assigned the case. The
judge is responsible for explaining the rules and procedure to the
participants. The parties are then allowed to present their cases, which
are subsequently summarized by the mediator. Within this process, the
parties present their evidence and may call experts to voice particular
opinions on the issues in dispute. The mediator then works with the parties
to develop an amicable solution, which when finalized is recorded in a
The cost is borne by the party initiating the complaint and is
determined on a case by case basis.
The Cybercourt process is presumptively non-binding unless each party to
the dispute agrees to make it dispute. Thus the system does create any
ramifications arising from party noncompliance.
Cybersettle.com provides an interactive service that provides
confidential, automated, online dispute resolution. The system was designed
to provide a more productive settlement method using Internet technology to
create an unbiased resolution tool. Cybersettle.com specializes in United
States. Property and Casualty insurance industry. As of May 2000, cyber
settle has processed 16000 claims for over 25 million dollars.
Cybersettle accepts two types of claims; represented and
unrepresented. Represented claims are those in which the claimant
has engaged an attorney. Unrepresented claims are negotiated and settled
directly between an insurance company and a claimant without attorney
Insurance claims representatives register claims on Cybersettle by
submitting three confidential settlement offers on a secure web site. The
Cybersettle call center then contacts the opposing party via email, fax and
telephone to inform them of the possibility of settling online.
The parties then submit their settlement offers and demands into the
cybersettle system. Settlement occurs if the settlement offer and demand
amounts are within the lesser of 30% or $5,000 of each other, at which point
the parties are notified that the claim has settled for the median amount.
Neither party has access to the offers and demands other then the final
Settlements obtained through Cybersettle are binding on both parties,
thus parties are encouraged to sign good faith clauses as a part of their
complaints. Before any resolution can take place both parties must agree to
be bound by Cybersettle's participation agreement.
The costs of using Cybersettle are apportioned between the parties
involved and are divided as follows: the party initiating the claim will pay
a $25.00 case submission fee once three rounds of offers are uploaded on
Cybersettle's system. Once the respondent has engaged the system and
entered demands, the initiator is charged an additional $75.00. If the case
does not settle using Cyber settle these will be the only costs. If the
case settles, both sides pay a maximum of $200.00 per side. If no
settlement is reached the respondent will bear no costs.
Disputes.org/eResolution.ca is a dispute resolution provider for domain
name disputes. Currently Disputes.org/eResolution.ca only accepts
complaints regarding ".com," ".org," or ".net" domain names. In January of
2000, Disputes.org was chosen as one of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers' accredited providers of online domain name
dispute resolution.28 As such they apply
ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.29
A dispute becomes available for resolution when a complainant initiates
an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint on the system.
Pursuant to the agreement that was signed when the domain name holder
registered the domain name, she/he must participate in the online
The process begins when a person submits a complaint and provides the
names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the
panelists in the case she/he chooses for a three member panel. Disputes.org
then forwards the complaint to the respondent, who submits a response. If
the respondent does not submit a response the panel decides the dispute
based on the complaint. In the case of a single-member panel, Disputes.org
appoints the panelist from its list of panelists. In the case of a
three-member panel each party may provide the names of three candidates to
serve as one of the panelists and Disputes.org appoints the third. The
panel is required to forward a decision within fourteen days of its
appointment. A final decision is rendered within 60 days of the submission
of the complaint.
The process utilizes an Internet web site and email to communicate with
its clients. Complaints and their responses are posted to the web site
using ordinary Internet access. Once a decision is reached a full opinion
is published on the site. The process is open rather than confidential. A
losing party does not lose its right to appeal and may pursue its claim in a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Complainant pays fees ranging from $750 to $3,500 depending on the panel
composition and the number of domain names in dispute. Only when the
complainant has chosen a single-member panel and respondent a three-member
panel, will the fees be shared equally between the parties.
I-Courthouse provides users with access to online adjudication, dispute
evaluation and resolution. I-Courthouse handles all kinds of disputes and
does not limit itself to disputes arising from online transactions. It is
I-Courthouse's goal to become the courthouse of the Internet and become
accepted as an ADR option by the courts and government.
The I-Courthouse process is open to anyone, with a dispute.
I-Courthouse is a voluntary process that becomes available when a user
registers and fills out a plaintiff claim form. As a precondition to using
the settlement process, a user must have an approved account with
I-Courthouse and accept the user agreement and rules. Without an express
written agreement, the parties are not excluded from seeking further redress
in a court of law.
The first step in the process is to register and submit a case on the
I-Courthouse web site. The user can then chose to obtain settlement through
the Peer Jury (which is open to the public) or the Panel Jury (which is
private). Each registered plaintiff and defendant is issued a Trial Book
upon registration and must complete it within 72 hours of registering.
An email summons is sent to the defendant, and she/he must then register
as a defendant within ten days. A defendant failing to register within ten
days may have verdicts rendered against them solely based on the plaintiff's
trial book. The parties may agree as to what portion of the verdicts will
constitute a decision. Jurors then read and review the entire contents of
each party's trial book. They then render their verdict, which shall not
award damages in excess of the damages requested by a plaintiff. A case
remains open until dismissed by the plaintiff, either because the parties
agree that there has been a final verdict, or because the parties have
settled the case.
The I-Courthouse process is initiated on the Internet. Communication
takes place both by email as well as the I-Courthouse web site where
verdicts are posted. Although I-Courthouse utilizes a password protected
web site it does not make any warranties as to the security of information
passing through their site.
Peer Jury is free. Panel Jury costs $200 per panel, per party.
iLevel is a third party community which uses "peer pressure" to entice
vendors to effectuate resolutions with their customers. It provides this
service to B2C and B2B companies. The company focuses their efforts on the
premise that disgruntled customers are a liability, and that it is in a
vendor's best interest to settle with their customers. iLevel sites data
generated by Arthur Anderson stating that:
- The cost of acquiring a new customer is 5 to 15 times as expensive as
- 85% of satisfied customers continue to purchase from the company.
- A 5% increase in customer satisfaction will yield an 18% drop in
- Repeat customers account for 80% percent of revenue. One unhappy
customer tells 10.
Thus iLevel attempts to leverage the power of the market to create an
incentive for vendors to engage in communication with the customer. The
service provided is not a mediation or arbitration, but rather more along
the lines of a community bulletin board or newspaper that allows subscribers
to post their disputes online.
Although the iLevel site targets online disputes, it provides a venue all
kinds of disputes. In order to file a complaint a complainant must first
become a member of iLevel. The process begins with the registration of
complaint by a disgruntled customer. Next the vendor in question (VIQ) is
contacted and asked to participate in a discussion in order to resolve the
dispute. The information regarding both parties and their complaint is held
in confidence until the parties have had at least two opportunities to
reconcile. If no resolution is reached, all of the information, including
the negotiation between the parties, is made public on iLevel's web site.
Membership or non-membership does not shield a party from the public posting
of a dispute. Unlike traditional litigation, which can take years to run
its course, the iLevel service can take no longer than 30 days. Either the
parties settle within 30 days or the dispute is made public.
iLevel does not charge per dispute like most other Online ADR providers.
Instead it charges a membership fee that is good for one year. There are
no hourly fees, no expert's fee, nor any other indirect costs to either
party. Additionally a VIQ is not required to become a member to
participate. Through this scheme iLevel attempts to create a system that is
not limited by the high costs of the resolution process.
InternetNeutral offers mediation services to resolve disputes between
Internet businesses and their customers or suppliers. It is one of the
oldest sites providing ADR online, having been formed in 1997. Internet
businesses, their customers and their suppliers may file InternetNeutral
A party initiates the process by filing a mediation demand or request.
Subsequently, InternetNeutral invites the opposing party to participate in
mediation. If the other party agrees, InternetNeutral proposes a mediator
and supplies information to allow the parties to ascertain whether the
proposed mediator has any financial or personal interest in the result and
is otherwise qualified. If the parties agree, the mediator is appointed to
the case. A mediation date is then scheduled. The mediator then assists
the parties in settling the dispute.
A $250.00 fee is required with both the claim and the response. For
mediations via email only, the fees range from $1-$6 per minute depending on
the amount in dispute. For online mediation other than by email, the fee is
$125.00 per hour. These fees assume provision of services between the hours
of 7am and 7pm, local time of the mediator, and charges outside of these
windows are 50% greater. Generally the parties share the fees equally.
Mediation is non-binding. Parties may always seek redress in a court of
law. Once a settlement is reached, it is binding only to the extent it
would be binding under state contract law. The InternetNeutral process
does not prescribe any consequences for non-compliance. Generally
settlement is reached in 85% of mediations.
NewCourtCity.com provides a variety of legal services, and specializes in
alternative dispute resolution processes. It is currently in the process of
establishing an online mediation venue called the Virtual Mediator.
The on-line Virtual Mediator is expected to be an easy and effective
method of resolving financial disputes for considerably less expense than
traditional litigation. The Virtual Mediator is a private, confidential
process that claims to allow business and individuals to resolve disputes
without public exposure or concern themselves about setting adverse legal
precedents. As of June 6, 2000, although the main web site was operational,
the Virtual Mediator had yet to go live.
Onlinemediators offers online mediation for settling disputes. It has
been online since January 2000, and services all kinds of disputes. The
Mediation Information & Resource Center sponsor Onlinemediators.
The process begins with a registration of the complaint by completing a
confidential information form. This form is only made available to the
complainant and the assigned mediator. Onlinemediators then contacts
opposing party and seeks to obtain their consent to participate in online
mediation. If the parties agree to mediation, a mediator is assigned to the
case. The mediator then initiates a dialogue with the parties and assists
them to reach agreement. No deadlines are imposed for settlement, and the
mediator will check and respond to online mediation email daily Monday
through Friday. When an agreement is reached, the parties complete an
agreement form. The process concludes with an evaluation of the
responsiveness, courtesy and effectiveness of the mediator and the mediation
Internet web page and email are used for communication.
Onlinemediators uses a pricing system based upon the amount in dispute.
For disputes under $2,000, a rate of $36.50 per hour is charged to each
party for up to two hours. Beyond this time period, any fees are negotiated
between the clients and the mediator. For disputes of $2,000 to $10,000, a
rate of $50 per hour is charged to each party for up to six hours of
services. Beyond this, any fees are negotiated. Disputes of $10,000 to
$50,000, carry a rate of $100 per hour for each party for up to two hours of
mediation. Beyond two hours the rate is $62.50 per hour, per party. Over
$50,000, a fee of $100 per hour, per party is charged for up to two hours of
service. Beyond this the fee is $75 per hour, per party
Mediators at Onlinemediators are required to have a minimum of 30 hours
of mediation skills training, a minimum of two years mediation experience,
and at least 10 traditional face to face mediations. When the amount in
dispute is over $2000, the mediators are required to have at least 100 hours
of mediation skill training and have completed at least 50 face to face
mediations. Even with such extensive training parties may be dissatisfied
with the impartiality or neutrality of the mediator. If a party is
dissatisfied, it may request that the mediator withdraw him or herself, and
seek agreement with the other party to accept another mediator.
Onlinemediators require their mediators to operate according to the
Model Standards of Practice for Mediators of the American Bar Association.
Under these standards confidentiality is given a great deal of importance.
Thus, unless waived, a mediator will maintain confidentiality and will not
share confidential information with either party. Furthermore, no mediation
communications may be utilized in any subsequent contested action between
A resulting settlement will not be binding on either party unless the
parties have created an express contract stating their intentions to be
bound by the settlement.
Though currently under construction, this site has been offering online
mediation services since 1996. Online Ombuds has focused primarily on
disputes arising from online transactions, but accepts any type of dispute.
The Online Ombuds is a part of the dispute resolution arm of the
Mediation Information and Resource Center. The service is available to all
types of clients, corporate or private individual.
Online Ombuds uses email and its web page to communicate with clients.
A party to a dispute will email Online Ombuds to initiate mediation. If
both parties are willing participants and ombudsperson will be assigned to
the dispute. The parties will provide the ombudsperson with information
regarding the dispute and the he or she will assist them in reaching a
settlement, but will not make any final decisions. The outcome of the
mediation is a possible settlement agreement. The binding effect of such an
agreement depends on the terms adopted by the parties. Finally, the
settlement process carries no fixed time lines, and is free to both
Settlementnow.com offers an online computer assisted mechanism for
settling insurance claims. The service provided is similar to
Cybersettle.com, in that it is based on a monetary offer-demand negotiation
process that specializes in insurance claims. As opposed to Cybersettle
though, Settlmentnow.com utilizes a flat fee of $219.00.
A claimant will begin the process by setting up an account. He will be
asked to input all of the pertinent information regarding the dispute,
including the amount of the demand. At this point, Settlementnow.com will
contact the claims adjuster and express that the claim has been brought on
Settlementnow.com's online forum and is available for settlement. The
adjuster will then be asked to make a demand. As contrasted with
Cybersettle, the claimant and the adjuster will have an unlimited number of
demands. Settlementnow's computer software analyzes the demands to see if
a settlement has been reached. The claim will settle when both claims are
within a range equivalent to 1/3 the value of the other and will be settled
for the median amount.
In order to facilitate the process, once a demand is entered, the
claimants will be notified of the lowest possible settlement amount before
finalizing their demand. Once and offer is entered, claims adjusters will
be notified of the highest possible settlement amount before finalizing
their offer. If the offer and demand differ by more than 1/3, the claim will
not settle. Once settlement has been achieved, the parties receive both an
online notification and an email notification.
Users of Settlementnow must agree to be legally bound in writing by all
settlements arising from the negotiation. Settlements will be binding on
both parties and shall preclude them from seeking redress in a court for the
same claim. In addition, parties are barred from bringing any other suit
arising from the same facts from which the claim arose.
Negotiation of disputes using this model has also been adopted by
Settleonline.com. Settleonline has extended the model to cover all kinds of
dispute where a monetary amount is in dispute.
SquareTrade.com provides customers of e-commerce sites with a new medium
for buyers and sellers to settle disputes. In addition they recently began
to function as a certification authority. SquareTrade.com utilizes
impartial mediators to reach fast and fair solutions. They seek to avoid
the high costs of litigation and provide an affordable forum to hear
disputes arising online, in an online forum. In this manner they seek to
"increase trust" as customers transact online.
An electronic complaint is filed in which a complaining party states, in
its own words, what has taken place. The other party is notified by email.
If all goes well the opposing party responds to the complaint. The
complaint is posted on a secure SquareTrade site and the parties try to
resolve the problem themselves, using SquareTrade's proprietary technology
and process. If an agreement cannot be reached a mediator is assigned to
the case. The SquareTrade mediator then guides the parties through
mediation. If all goes well the parties are able to settle their
Who may file a complaint?
Initially the service was only available to eBay.com customers, but has
recently opened its doors to other online transactions.
SquareTrade utilizes email, and its proprietary mediation technology to
settle disputes. Problems are typically resolved in about 10 to 14 days.
However, the length of the process depends on how quickly the parties
involved respond to messages. The more quickly the required information is
provided, the faster a mediator will be able to help the parties develop an
agreeable resolution. The SquareTrade mediator helps the case participants
to explore their positions, needs and interests, generate their own options
for settlement, and assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.
In the majority of cases, both sides of a disagreement want to find a
solution. SquareTrade works to encourage the defendant party to respond to a
case but does not guarantee that the other party will participate as the
process is entirely voluntary. In many cases, a SquareTrade partner
marketplace (e.g. eBay) may also work to encourage all parties to
participate. Generally the mediation process results in a resolution
mutually agreeable for both parties. In the event that the parties can't
agree, the parties may ask the mediator to recommend a resolution based on
each party's position and on principles of fundamental fairness. Generally
if the parties reach an agreed upon resolution, compliance with the terms of
the settlement is not a problem. If necessary, however, a party can always
use the court system as a method of recourse.
Currently, there are no costs to use SquareTrade's system to file a case.
The complaining party and their adversary can use the system to outline
issues, and respond to each other efficiently. During the current pilot
period with eBay there are no fees to involve a SquareTrade Mediator to
assist buyers and sellers in resolving issues related to an eBay
transaction. Outside of eBay transactions, if a customer a requests that a
SquareTrade mediator assist in reaching a satisfactory agreement, they will
be charged $10 plus 2.5% of the amount in controversy.
WEBdispute.com is an online arbitration service for online commercial
disputes arising in both B2B and B2C contexts. Webdispute.com provides
parties with three separate forums for resolving disputes; document/email
hearing, telephone hearing, and in person hearing. These forums have been
developed to accommodate the unique circumstances of web-based disputes.
Parties to a dispute must decide on the appropriate forum for having their
dispute heard. The parties must understand that Web based disputes present
particular problems including proximity of parties, which may result in
relinquishing the right to a face-to-face hearing. However, using web-based
forums, each party is given adequate opportunity to present their case and
refute their opponent's case. Although they are not required to, the
parties may agree to have the arbitration be binding.
In a document/e-mail hearing the parties to a dispute to submit
documents (written statements, notarized witness affidavits, contracts,
photographs, video tapes, letters, pictures, charts, e-mail records) to the
arbitrator and to the opposing party. The arbitration is not conducted in
person, but rather is based upon the arbitrator's consideration of the above
documents related to the dispute. The arbitrator will give the parties time
(one week) to comment on their opponent's position by e-mail and will make a
decision on the merits of the case on a pre-specified hearing closing date.
Within twenty business days of this date the parties will be formally
notified of the arbitrator's decision.
Pricing for Document/email Hearing: for amounts under
|Amount in Controversy
Virtual Magistrate (VMAG) is dedicated to providing a low cost
alternative to method to litigation and traditional methods of alternative
dispute resolution. The service accepts complaints arising from the use of
online systems such as spamming, defamation, removal of a message posted on
a web page, contract, and property or tort dispute regarding online issues.
The system was first developed in 1995, and recently received a facelift in
The VMAG process is similar to most other online arbitration systems. A
party must file a complaint arising from an online activity. VMAG contacts
the opposing party, and they are invited to answer the complaint and take
part in an arbitration. An arbitrator is then assigned to the case, and in
most instances will request more information. The magistrate will attempt
to reach a decision with in 72 hours after the acceptance of a complaint.
This method is very appropriate to the online forum due to the rapid nature
of change in content on the Internet.
Under typical circumstances the decisions of VMAG will be published and
will not remain confidential after a decision has been made. The decisions
of VMAG may be reconsidered but will not be subject to appeal. The VMAG
Project will seek to persuade parties to agree, in consideration to the
dispute resolution process, to be bound by the decisions. Unfortunately the
system does not provide any consequences for non-compliance with the
decisions. The process is provided free of monetary charge and is provided
via the Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology.
- Letter from Denis M. Wright, Assistant Attorney General - Chief, Consumer Affairs, State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General, to Anita Ramasastry, Assistant Professor of Law, Center for Law, Commerce and Technology (hereinafter "CLCT"); (May 16, 2000); Letter from Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and Marti Crawford, Consumer Specialist, Consumer Protection Division, State of Nebraska, Office of the Attorney General, to CLCT, (May 2, 2000); Electronic letter from Jay I. Ashman, Assistant Attorney General, Consumer Assistance Program, Vermont Attorney General's Office, to CLCT, (May 22, 2000); Letter from Jill L. Miles, Deputy Attorney General, State of West Virginia Office of the Attorney General, to CLCT, (May 31, 2000) ; Electronic letter from Judy Austad, Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust division, North Dakota Attorney General's Office, to CLCT , (May 22, 2000); Letter from Jill L. Miles, Deputy Attorney General, State of West Virginia Office of the Attorney General, to CLCT, (May 31, 2000); Letter from David B. Irvin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Attorney General, to, (May 23, 2000); Letter from Todd Letterman, Director of Consumer Protection, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of the Attorney General, to CLCT , (May 12, 2000); Letter from Bruce Meeks, Executive Deputy, State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, to CLCT , (July 11, 2000); Letter from Scott J. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, to CLCT , (May 12, 2000) (Letters on file with the CLCT).
- See Letter from David B. Irvin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Attorney General.
- See Id.
- See Id.
- Attorney General of Washington, Consumer and Criminal Justice Cyber Clearinghouse, http://www.wa.gov/ago/clearinghouse/, last visited June 16, 2000.
- New York State Internet complaint forms http://www.oag.state.ny.us/internet_complaint/, last visited June 16, 2000.
- Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Commerce, Address at Annual Meeting of the New York State Business Council, September 23, 1999, http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/statements/e_commerce.html.
- Ethan Katsh, Summary of presentation to Ohio State University Law School Journal of Dispute Resolution, Symposium on ADR in Cyberspace (November 11, 1999), http://www.osu.edu/units/law/JDR/katshpaper.htm.
- For example the Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology's Virtual Magistrate http://www.vmag.org/, last visited June 8, 2000.
- SquareTrade.com, http://www.squaretrade.com, has been a leader in this area. Though it currently handles complaints related to all aspects of e-business, it began as a pilot program within the eBay auction site. Last visited June 8, 2000.
- John Swartz, Online Firms Plan Retail Guidelines (visited June 10, 2000) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2939-2000Jun5.html.
- See id.
- See id.
- For example see http://www.ilevel.com.
- http://www.squaretrade.com, last visited June 8, 2000.
- For example Model Standards of Practice for Mediators of the American Bar Association.
- Swarts, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2939-2000Jun5.html.
- eResolution (Disputes.org) Supplemental Rules, http://www.eresolution.ca/services/dnd/p_r/supprules.htm.
- http://www.bbbonline.org, last visited June 16, 2000.
- http://www.bbbonline.org/businesses/privacy/dr/index.html, last visited June 16, 2000.
- BBB Online Guide for filing a complaint, http://www.bbbonline.org/consumers/drguide.htm, last visited June 16, 2000.
- http://www.clicknsettl.com, last visited June 8, 2000.
- Though clickNsettle.com advertises a fully interactive site on which disputes are settled, all demands and offers are communicated via email.
- http://www.cyberarbitration.com, last visited June 8, 2000.
- http://www.cybercourt.org, last visited June 8, 2000.
- http://www.cybersettle.com, last visited June 6, 2000.
- http://www.disputes.org, last visited June 9, 2000.
- Another ADR provider chosen by ICANN is Arbitration-Forum.com. It is a part of The National Arbitration Forum which has been in existence since 1986. http://www.arbitration-forum.com, visited June 11, 2000.
- http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm, last visited June 9, 2000.
- http://www.i-courthouse.com/, last visited June 9, 2000.
- http://www.ilevel.com, last visited June 15, 2000.
- http://www.internetneutral.com/, last visited June 9, 2000.
- http://www.onlinemediators.com, last visited June 9, 2000.
- http://www.onlineombuds.com, last visited June 9, 2000.
- http://settlementnow.com, last visited June 8, 2000.
- http://squaretrade.com, last visited June 8, 2000.
- http://webdispute.com, last visited June 16, 2000.
- http://www.vmag.org/, last visited June 8, 2000.