Foreword

Since the beginning days of ODR, low-value e-commerce disputes were seen as
one of the most suited domains for the resolution of online disputes. First, because the dispute has an online origin, so it seems logical to resolve conflicts online after an online transaction. Second, because courts, in particular in an international context, are not fit for resolving these kind disputes and are also too expensive. The European Union is a big proponent of this argument. They adduced it 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and still today. Their argument is that consumers would trust cross-border e-commerce disputes better if they knew their conflicts would be adequately resolved. The European Union also believes that the amount of cross-border EU transactions is still low because of the lack of trust. However, for many years EU citizens buy from service providers in countries outside the EU.
For 20 years they purchase from US websites, and over the last years from Chinese sites, notably Alibaba. Plus, consumers are not interested in resolving via ODR. Rather, they contact the seller directly or post a negative review. That is also what students at the London School of Economics said when I gave a guest lecture on ODR a couple of years ago. Last March, however, quite a few LSE students in the same course believed that if ODR is convenient and inexpensive, consumers might be even interested in resolving low-value disputes by ODR.
Clearly, the last word has not been spoken on this topic.