MI E.M. E.M. MEIJERS MEIJERS INSTITUUT 283 INSTITUUT INSTITUUT VOOR INSTITUUT VOOR RECHTSWETENSCHAPPELIJK D. Dimov RECHTSWETENSCHAPPELIJK Solving disputes often takes a considerable amount of time and money. ONDERZOEK ONDERZOEK That holds for everyone involved. A new type of dispute resolution called Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (CODR) seems to have the potential to offer a cheap, fast, and democratic dispute resolution procedure. Since it is currently not clear whether CODR procedures comply with the requirements of procedural fairness, the attractiveness and the acceptance of Crowdsourced CODR procedures may be in discussion. This thesis aims to establish whether CODR can fairly resolve disputes. First, Online Dispute it provides a framework of CODR, analyses the differences between CODR and other dispute resolution schemes, and constructs interpretation of procedural fairness that merges objective and subjective procedural fairness. Resolution Second, the research investigates whether the current CODR procedures are fair and proposes a model of a CODR procedure that complies with the interpretation of procedural fairness. Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution The findings of the research indicate that CODR can be designed to fairly resolve disputes. D. DIMOV This is a volume in the series of the Meijers Research Institute and Graduate School of the Leiden Law School. This study is part of the Law School’s research programme ‘Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights in a Pluralist World’. ISBN 978-94-028-0578-9 9 789402 805789 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3003815 Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3003815 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3003815 Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. C.J.J.M. Stolker, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op dinsdag 27 juni 2017 klokke 16.15 uur door Daniel Velizarov Dimov geboren te Tutrakan, Bulgarije in 1983 Promotores: Prof. dr. H. J. van den Herik Prof. dr. A. R. Lodder (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Promotiecommissie: Prof. dr. N. J. H. Huls Prof. dr. O. Rabinovich (University of Haifa, Israel) Prof. dr. H. B. Verheij (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen) Prof. dr. J. Zeleznikow (Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia) Mr. dr. ir. B. H. M. Custers eLAW - Leiden University Center for Law and Digital Technologies SIKS Dissertation series no. 2017-17. The research reported in this thesis has been caried out under the auspicies of SIKS, the Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems. Lay-out: AlphaZet prepress, Waddinxveen Printwerk: Ipskamp Printing ISBN 978-94-028-0578-9 © D.V. Dimov 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. Preface In the dawn of the Internet era, I succeeded to buy an expensive computer. I started providing it to other people in return for a small fee. Later, at the age of 16, I bought 7 new computers and made an Internet cafe in the garage of my parents. During my work at the Internet cafe, I became familiar with the Internet. In these times, I learned about programming, web design, hacking, Linux, and other computer activities. Then, I registered myself as a law student in the former Technical University of Ruse (now University of Ruse). In Bulgaria, the Internet and law are two distant things. I really want- ed to connect them, but in the University of Ruse there were neither experts in IT law, nor experts in a related discipline. I did not achieve the union of my interests and went to the Netherlands where I studied European law at the Radboud University Nijmegen. In the Netherlands, I was pleased to learn about the Center for Law in the Internet Society at the Leiden University. After a meeting with prof. dr. Jaap van den Herik, I found the interesting topic of “Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (CODR)”. I was particularly attracted to this topic by the fact that it requires research not only in field of Internet law, but also in the field of philosophy. For instance, during the research, I felt myself close to Plato’s idea for collective organisms and to Jung’s idea for collective con- sciousness. I firmly believe in the future of CODR. I also believe that justice should be free, fast, and available to everyone. Please do not understand me wrong- ly; I know that expertise cannot be provided always for free. However, even if CODR can resolve fairly only some kinds of disputes (1) for lower cost than the costs, which need to be paid for traditional dispute resolution, and (2) faster than the traditional dispute resolution, it would be a great success. Daniel Dimov Wervik, West Flanders, Belgium February 2017 Acknowledgements I would like to thank prof. dr. Jaap van den Herik who tiressly guided me through the entire research contained in this thesis. Also, I would to express my gratitude to prof. dr. Arno R. Lodder and dr. Laurens Mommers who supervised significant parts of this research for their support, constructive feedback, and a goal-oriented approach. Dr. Bibi van den Berg and prof. dr. Simone van der Hof played an important part in the preparation of this thesis. Many thanks for their valuable lessons. Furthermore, I acknowledge with gratitude the support of my fiancée Rasa, my parents Pauna and Veli- zar, and my brother Ivan. This thesis would not have been possible without them. Last but not least, I thank all my friends and colleagues who con- tributed to this work, including, but not limited to, Roel van Rijswijck and Metodi Dimitrov. Table of Contents Preface V Acknowledgements VII List of Figures XII List of Tables XIII List of Cases XIV List of Definitions XV List of current CODR providers XVI List of Abbreviations XVII 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Three disadvantages of traditional dispute resolution mechanisms 4 1.2 eBay’s Community Review Forum 5 1.3 Problem statement 7 1.4 Three research questions 8 1.5 Research goal and research methodology 9 1.6 Structure of the thesis 11 2 Literature review 13 2.1 Literature review on crowdsourcing 13 2.1.1 Crowdsourcing in general 13 2.1.2 Crowdsourcing in the field of law 29 2.2 Literature review on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) 30 2.2.1 Definitions of ODR 30 2.2.2 Typologies 35 2.2.3 Benefits of ODR 39 2.2.4 Drawbacks of ODR 40 2.3 Literature review on CODR 41 2.4 Chapter summary 43 3 Analysing existing CODR procedures 45 3.1 Online opinion polls 45 3.2 Online mock jury systems 53 3.3 Arbitration tribunals rendering self-enforceable decisions 63 3.4 Chapter summary 70 X Table of Contents 4 A framework for CODR 71 4.1 The four building blocks of the Malone framework 71 4.2 The Crowd 74 4.2.1 Type of entity 75 4.2.2 Diversity 76 4.2.3 Governance of the crowd 76 4.2.4 Temporality of the crowd 78 4.3 Incentives 78 4.4 Two broad categories of disputes to be resolved through CODR 82 4.4.1 Online Disputes 82 4.4.2 Offline Disputes 90 4.5 The CODR procedures 91 4.5.1 Parties 91 4.5.2 Stages of CODR 94 4.5.3 Characteristics of CODR procedures 99 4.6 Chapter summary 105 5 Our interpretation of procedural fairness 107 5.1 Objective procedural fairness 108 5.1.1 Expertise 109 5.1.2 Independence 109 5.1.3 Impartiality 111 5.1.4 Transparency 111 5.1.5 Fair hearing 113 5.1.6 Counterpoise 114 5.1.7 Ensuring a reasonable length of procedure 115 5.1.8 Providing reasons 115 5.1.9 Voluntary participation 116 5.2 Subjective procedural fairness 117 5.2.1 Process control 118 5.2.2 Decision control 119 5.2.3 Consistency 120 5.2.4 Accuracy 121 5.2.5 Correctability 122 5.2.6 Ethicality 122 5.3 Our interpretation of procedural fairness 123 5.4 Chapter summary 125 6 Procedural fairness of CODR procedures 127 6.1 Selection of three CODR procedures 127 6.1.1 Selection of a CODR procedure representing online opinion polls 128 6.1.2 Selection of a CODR procedure representing online mock jury systems 130 6.1.3 Selection of CODR procedures representing arbitration tribunals rendering self-enforceable decisions 130 Table of Contents XI 6.2 Analysis of compliance with our interpretation 132 6.2.1 The compliance of iCourthouse with our interpretation 132 6.2.2 The compliance of Jurytest with our interpretation 137 6.2.3 The compliance of the ECRF with our interpretation 140 6.2.4 Section summary 146 6.3 Chapter summary 147 7 A model of a fair CODR procedure 149 7.1 The composition of the model 149 7.1.1 Expertise 149 7.1.2 Independence 150 7.1.3 Impartiality 151 7.1.4 Transparency 152 7.1.5 Fair hearing 153 7.1.6 Counterpoise 155 7.1.7 Ensuring a reasonable length of procedure 156 7.1.8 Providing reasons 156 7.1.9 Voluntary participation 157 7.1.10 Process control 157 7.1.11 Decision control 158 7.1.12 Consistency 158 7.1.13 Accuracy 162 7.1.14 Correctability 163 7.1.15 Ethicality 164 7.2 Chapter summary 164 8 Conclusions and future research 167 8.1 Answers to the research questions 167 8.2 Answer to the problem statement 168 8.3 Contributions 169 8.4 Future research 170 References 175 Summary 191 Samenvatting 193 Summary in Bulgarian 195 Publications 197 Curriculum Vitae 199 SIKS Dissertation series (2011-2017) 201 List of Figures Figure 1.