When we say “ODR” or “Online Dispute Resolution,” most people hear the word “online” and assume a video link plus an arbitrator is good enough. Well, it isn’t. Without an end-to-end platform that carries a dispute from intake to enforceable outcome i.e. with identity, evidence, scheduling, hearings, payments, orders, analytics, and feedback loops, ODR is just another old wine in a digital bottle. Technology is not an accessory to ODR; rather, it is the operating system of ODR
Europe’s move to retire its flagship ODR portal is less about abandoning ODR and more about outgrowing a thin tool. What began as a gateway for cross-border complaints, couldn’t keep up with the complexity of modern disputes including identity, evidence, triage, SLAs, and enforceability. The lesson here isn’t that ODR doesn’t work; it’s that the portals which merely route complaints, without deep workflow, data plumbing, and enforceability, underperform. UX without process is cosmetics.Today, India is at an inflection point and we already have two invaluable building blocks:
First, a policy blueprint: NITI Aayog’s Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution sets out the case for mainstreaming ODR across public and private disputes.
Second, a production-grade use case: the Reserve Bank of India mandated ODR for digital payments, requiring time-bound, largely automated resolution pathways across payment operators.These show that when ODR is treated as an infrastructure that is end-to-end, it can deliver speed and trust at scale.
What exactly failed in Europe, and what must India (and others) do differently?
We need three major shifts for India to have an efficient ODR mechanism:
1) From “portal” to “platform”
A portal lists options; a platform executes outcomes. An ODR platform should be a stitched flow—e-KYC and consent, structured intake, rules-driven triage, secure evidence lockers, assisted negotiation and mediation, online hearings where needed, automated drafting of settlement terms, payments/refunds, e-stamping and mechanisms to convert settlements into enforceable instruments.
Data should auto-populate registers and dashboards so that regulators, platforms, and providers see bottlenecks before users do. The EU’s post-closure messaging points to “better tools” that help users find and reach the right redress path—precisely the kind of orchestration layer a platform should be.2) Shifting to Performance discipline
Courts, regulators, and marketplaces should demand measurable outcomes like settlement rates, adherence to timelines, consumer satisfaction, and re-dispute rates, rather than mere participation in ODR. RBI’s framework is instructive: it imposes SLAs and automation for failed digital transactions, integrating ODR into the payments stack instead of leaving it to ad-hoc complaint desks. A national ODR grid should similarly define standard data schemas, APIs, and event logs, so that cases flow between businesses, platforms, and tribunals with minimal friction.
3) ODR as a Digital Institution
True ODR is a system, not a Zoom link. NITI Aayog’s policy plan anticipates accreditation, audits, and transparent reporting, a governance structure that makes an online process worthy of public trust. Add to this privacy-by-design, layered access controls, and immutable audit trails to align with data protection laws. If we want outcomes respected by parties and courts, we must engineer for integrity, not just convenience.
What could this look like in practice?
● ODR as Public Digital Infrastructure (PDI): A set of open standards (identity, consent, case schema, notifications, evidence, and orders) with certified private and public platforms plugging in, exactly how UPI turned fragmented payment experiences into an interoperable network. Independent research has already framed ODR alongside digital public infrastructure as a natural fit.
● “File-to-Finality”: Every matter must have a deterministic path from complaint to closure. Where settlement fails, the platform should generate a court-grade dossier and facilitate e-filing or e-lok adalat channels, preserving all digital artefacts. NITI’s blueprint already points to such handshakes.
● Outcomes one can bank on: Settlements should auto-generate enforceable instruments, or at least be convertible at low cost, so the platform doesn’t just end in a PDF. The EU’s experience highlights the weakness of outcomes that aren’t easily enforceable across borders. India must bake enforceability into the design from day one.
I believe, for businesses, the demand is simple: treat ODR as part of customer success, not compliance. The ODR “handbook” must follow—resolve fast, build trust, de-escalate. This will lead to businesses reducing churn and legal spend. For the State, the bargain is even better: fewer small-value filings, better market discipline, and a data-rich lens on consumer harm without burdening courts.
The EU platform’s closure is not the end of ODR, rather, it is the end of thin ODR. India can lead by operationalising ODR as digital infrastructure, holding platforms to performance, and insisting that technology does what justice must—deliver finality, not just a meeting link.
