Online Dispute Resolution in Consumer Disputes: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

With the rapid growth of digitalisation, consumer transactions have gained a new dimension, while delays, high costs, and access barriers in traditional courts have intensified the need for faster and more efficient solutions. In this context, ODR models, characterised by low cost, flexibility, and user-oriented design, provide significant advantages for individuals and institutions. The study first examines consumer disputes and existing mechanisms in Turkish law and then explores the conceptual foundations, evolution, advantages, and limitations of ODR. In addition to strengths such as speed, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility, challenges related to enforceability, impartiality, and technical infrastructure are discussed. The UNCITRAL Technical Notes on ODR are analysed to assess international standards of justice, transparency, and accountability. Turkish implementations, including UYAP, e-hearings, the Consumer Information System, online mediation, and online arbitration, are evaluated. The comparative section reviews ODR models from the European Union, the United States, Canada, Singapore, Brazil, and China. While the EU ODR platform has struggled due to its voluntary structure, Brazil’s Consumidor.gov.br has succeeded through state support and transparency. The Civil Resolution Tribunal in Canada and Singapore’s Community Justice and Tribunals System further demonstrate that ODR can become an integral part of the judiciary. The article concludes with key lessons and recommendations for adapting the ODR to the Turkish legal system.

Keywords

• Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
• Consumer Law
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
• Digital Justice
• Comparative Law

Tüketici Uyuşmazlıklarında Çevrimiçi Çözüm Yolları: Karşılaştırmalı Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Dijitalleşmenin hızla artmasıyla birlikte tüketici işlemleri yeni bir boyut kazanmış; klasik yargı mekanizmalarındaki gecikmeler, yüksek maliyetler ve erişim engelleri, daha hızlı ve etkin çözüm yollarına duyulan ihtiyacı artırmıştır. Bu çerçevede (Online Dispute Resolution veya ODR) modelleri, düşük maliyetli, esnek ve kullanıcı odaklı yapılarıyla hem bireyler hem de kurumlar açısından önemli avantajlar sunmaktadır. Çalışmada öncelikle Türk hukukunda tüketici uyuşmazlıkları ve mevcut çözüm yolları üzerinde durulmuş, ardından ODR’nin kavramsal temelleri, tarihsel gelişimi, avantajları ve sınırlılıkları ele alınmış; özellikle hızlılık, maliyet etkinliği ve erişilebilirlik gibi güçlü yönlerinin yanında, icra kabiliyeti, tarafsızlık, teknik güvenlik ve altyapı eksiklikleri tartışılmıştır. Ardından UNCITRAL tarafından yayımlanan ODR Teknik Notları değerlendirilerek adalet, şeffaflık ve hesap verebilirlik ilkeleri bağlamında uluslararası standartlar incelenmiştir. Türk hukukundaki uygulamalar arasında UYAP, e-duruşma, Tüketici Bilgi Sistemi (TÜBİS), çevrimiçi arabuluculuk ve çevrimiçi tahkim örnekleri ele alınmıştır. Karşılaştırmalı bölümde Avrupa Birliği, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Kanada, Singapur, Brezilya ve Çin modelleri analiz edilmiştir. Avrupa Birliği ODR platformunun gönüllülük esasına dayalı yapısının başarısızlığına karşın, Brezilya’daki Consumidor.gov.br modeli kamu desteği ve şeffaflık sayesinde yüksek başarı elde etmiştir. Kanada’daki Civil Resolution Tribunal ve Singapur’daki Community Justice and Tribunals System modelleri ise ODR’nin yargı sistemine entegre edilebileceğini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, farklı ülkelerde uygulanan ODR modellerinden Türk hukuku açısından çıkarılabilecek dersler ve öneriler ileri sürülmektedir.

Keywords

• Çevrimiçi Uyuşmazlık Çözümü
• Tüketici Hukuku
• Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (ADR)
• Dijital Adalet
• Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk

References

1. Akipek Öcal Ş and Kara İ, Tüketici Hukuku Dersleri (Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara 2021). google scholar
2. American Bar Association Task Force on Electronic Commerce and Alternative Dispute Resolution, ‘Addressing Disputes in Electronic Commerce: Final Recommendations and Report’ (2002) 58(1) The Business Lawyer 415. google scholar
3. Aslan İY, 6502 Sayılı Kanuna Göre Tüketici Hukuku (5th edn, Ekin 2015)Avci P A, Tüketici İşlemi Niteliğindeki Promosyonlu Satış Sözleşmeleri (Adalet 2021)Susskind R, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford University Press 2019). google scholar
4. Aşçı MS, ‘Zorunlu Arabuluculuk Uygulamasının Olumlu ve Olumsuz Yönleri’ (2019) 1(2) Uluslararası Hukuk ve Sosyal Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 80. google scholar
5. Badur E, ‘Arabulucunun Sözleşme Görüşmelerinden Doğan Sorumluluğu’ (2024) 1(1) Medeni Hukuk Dergisi 1. google scholar
6. Beğen E, ‘Consumer E-Dispute: Online Dispute Resolution in Turkey’ (Master’s Thesis, Tilburg University 2018). google scholar
7. Betancourt JC and Zlatanska E, ‘Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): What Is It, and Is It the Way Forward?’ (2013) 79 International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management 262. google scholar
8. Bozkurt Yüksel A E, ‘Elektronik Ticarette Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü’ (2008) 123 Mevzuat Dergisi 1.Budak A C, ‘6502 Sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun’a Göre Tüketici Hakem Heyetleri’ (2014) 16 Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 77. google scholar

9. Calliess G-P and Heetkamp S J, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Conceptual and Regulatory Framework’ (2019) 22 TLI Think! Paper 1. google scholar
10. Cetin O, ‘Telekonferans Yöntemiyle Yapılan Arabuluculuk Görüşmelerinde Yaşanan Problemler ve Buna İlişkin Çözüm Önerileri’ (2021) 79(4) Ankara Barosu Dergisi 107. google scholar
11. Cona F A, ‘Application of Online Systems in Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (1997) 45 Buffalo Law Review 975. google scholar
12. Cortés P, ‘Online Dispute Resolution Services: A Selected Number of Case Studies’ (2014) 20(6) Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 172. google scholar
13. Cortés P, Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union (Routledge 2011). google scholar
14. Cortés P, The Law of Consumer Redress in an Evolving Digital Market: Upgrading from Alternative to Online Dispute Resolution (Cambridge University Press 2017). google scholar
15. Dal Pubel L, ‘eBay Dispute Resolution and Revolution: An Investigation on a Successful ODR Model’ (Paper presented at Collaborative Economy: Challenges & Opportunities, 2018) 130. google scholar
16. Del Duca LF, Rule C and Loebl Z, ‘Facilitating Expansion of Cross-Border E-Commerce: Developing a Global Online Dispute Resolution System’ (2012) 1(1) Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 59. google scholar
17. Del Duca LF, Rule C and Rimpfel K, ‘eBay de Facto Low Value High Volume Resolution Process: Lessons and Best Practices for ODR System Designers’ (2014) Arbitration Law Review 204. google scholar
18. Ding J, ‘Singapore’s Informal Justice Experience: Evaluating the Practice of the Small Claims Tribunals’ (2024) 41 Singapore Law Review 109. google scholar
19. Domanskis A, ‘Small Claims Courts: An Overview and Recommendation’ (1976) 9 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 590. google scholar
20. Ercan M, Uyuşmazlıkların Online Çözüm Yöntemleri (Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Gazi University 2012). google scholar
21. Ermenek İ, ‘Yargı Kararları Işığında Tüketici Sorunları Hakem Heyetleri ve Bu Alanda Ortaya Çıkan Sorunlara İlişkin Çözüm Önerileri’ (2013) 17(2) Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 563. google scholar
22. Fiss OM, ‘Against Settlement’ in Hinshaw A, Schneider A K and Cole S R (eds), Discussions in Dispute Resolution: The Foundational Articles (Oxford Academic 2021). google scholar
23. Fuller LL, ‘Mediation – Its Forms and Functions’ (1971) 44 California Law Review 305. google scholar
24. Gillieron P, ‘From Face-to-Face to Screen-to-Screen: Real Hope or True Fallacy’ (2008) 23(2) Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 301. google scholar
25. Hörnle J, ‘Online Dispute Resolution – The Emperor's New Clothes? Benefits and Pitfalls of Online Dispute Resolution and Its Application to Commercial Arbitration’ (2002) BILETA Annual Conference Proceedings. google scholar
26. Johnson P, ‘Enforcing Online Arbitration Agreements for Cross-Border Consumer Small Claims in China and the United States’ (2013) 36 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 583. google scholar
27. Johnson P, ‘Enforcing Online Arbitration Agreements for Cross-Border Consumer Small Claims in China and the United States’ (2013) 36 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 583. google scholar
28. José Schmidt-Kessen M, Nogueira R and Gamito MC, ‘Success or Failure? Effectiveness of Consumer ODR Platforms in Brazil and in the EU’ (2020) 43(3) Journal of Consumer Policy 659. google scholar
29. Kalafatoğlu MP, ‘Yabancı Unsurlu E-Tüketici Uyuşmazlıklarının İnternet Üzerinden Çözülmesi (Online Dispute Resolution) Konusunda Görüş, Düşünce ve Öneriler’ (2018) 34(2) Banking and Commercial Law Research Institute Review (BATİDER) 301. google scholar
30. Karabel EG and Aydemir D, ‘Medeni Usul Hukukunda Yargılamanın Hızlandırılması ve Adalete Erişim Hakkı Bakımından Çevrimiçi Yargılama ve Yapay Zekânın Kullanımı’ (2023) 29(1) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 530. google scholar
31. Katsh E and Rifkin J, Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 2001). google scholar
32. Katsh E and Rule C, ‘What We Know and Need to Know About Online Dispute Resolution’ (2016) 67(2) South Carolina Law Review 329. google scholar
33. Katsh Ethan and Rabinovich-Einy Orna, Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes (Oxford University Press 2017). google scholar
34. Katsh E, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: Some Lessons from the E-Commerce Revolution’ (2001) 28 Northern Kentucky Law Review 810. google scholar
35. Kaya S, Online Dispute Resolution in the Digital Age; Online Dispute Resolution (Oniki Levha Yayıncılık, İstanbul 2020). google scholar
36. Kıyak E, ‘Büyük Veri ve Yapay Zekâ Teknolojileri ile Adım Adım Zeki UYAP (Ulusal Yargı Ağı Projesi) Ekosistemine Doğru’ (2020) 22(1) Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 79. google scholar
37. Küpe B, ‘Uyuşmazlık Çözümünde Yeni Bir Alternatif: Çevrimiçi Tahkim’ (2021) 7 Uluslararası Hukuk Sempozyumu 251. google scholar
38. Lavi D, ‘Three Is Not a Crowd: Online Mediation-Arbitration in Business to Consumer Internet Disputes’ (2016) 37(3) University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 871. google scholar
39. Liyanage C, ‘Online Arbitration Compares to Offline Arbitration and the Reception of Online Consumer Arbitration: An Overview of the Literature’ (2010) 22 Sri Lanka Journal of International Law. google scholar
40. Loutocky P, ‘Practical Impacts of the EU Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes’ in Drličková K and Kyselovská T (eds), Cofola International 2016: Resolution of International Disputes (Masaryk University 2016) 254. google scholar
41. Lu Y, ‘Mapping China’s Online Consumer Dispute Resolution System’ (2024) 2(1) The Boğaziçi Law Review 48. google scholar
42. Malkavi BH, ‘Online Alternative Dispute Resolution and Transparency’ (2009) 2(1) Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 101. google scholar
43. Mıdık B, ‘Redesigning the Turkish Civil Litigation System in the Light of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)’ (2025) 29(1) Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (EBYÜ-HFD) 599. google scholar
44. Özbek MS, Alternatif Uyuşmazlık Çözümü (Yaklaşım Yayınları, Ankara 2004). google scholar
45. Özdemir MAE and Vural Çelenk B, ‘Tahkimde Çevrimiçi Duruşmalar ve Çevrimiçi Duruşmaların Hukuki Dinlenilme Hakkı ve Tarafların Eşitliği İlkeleri Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi’ (2022) 42(1) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 205. google scholar
46. Özel S, ‘Zorunlu Arabuluculuğun Adalete Erişim Hakkı Çerçevesinde İrdelenmesi’ (2020) 40(2) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 867. google scholar
47. Özmumcu S, ‘Dünyada ve Ülkemizde Online Uyuşmazlık Çözümleri Bağlamında Online Tahkim ve Uygulamaları’ (2020) 78(2) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 431. google scholar
48. Özsöker G, Tüketici Hakem Heyetleri (Yetkin Yayınları 2019). google scholar
49. Ramsay I, ‘Small Claims Courts in Canada: A Socio-Legal Appraisal’ in Whelan C (ed), Small Claims Courts: An International and Comparative Appraisal (Oxford University Press 1991) 25. google scholar
50. Rule C, ‘Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Justice’ (2020) 16(1) Annual Review of Law and Social Science 277. google scholar
51. Rule C, ‘Online Dispute Resolution and the Future of Justice’ (2020) 16(1) Annual Review of Law and Social Science 277. google scholar
52. Rule C, ‘Quantifying the Economic Benefits of Effective Redress: Large E-Commerce Data Sets and the Cost-Benefit Case for Investing in Dispute Resolution’ (2012) 34 University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review 767. google scholar
53. Rule C, Online Dispute Resolution for Businesses: B2B, E-Commerce, Consumer, Employment, Insurance, and Other Commercial Conflicts (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 2002). google scholar
54. Salter S, ‘Online Dispute Resolution and Justice System Integration: British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal’ (2017) 34(1) Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 112. google scholar
55. Schmitz AJ, ‘“Drive-Thru” Arbitration in the Digital Age: Empowering Consumers Through Binding ODR’ (2010) 62 Baylor Law Review 182. google scholar
56. Schmitz AJ and Martinez J, ‘ODR and Innovation in the United States’ in Wahab MS Abdel, Katsh E and Rainey D (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice – A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2022). google scholar
57. Schmitz AJ, ‘Evolution and Emerging Issues in Consumer Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)’ (2022) 714 Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper. google scholar
58. Schultz T, Kaufmann-Kohler G, Langer D and Bonnet V, ‘Online Dispute Resolution: The State of the Art and the Issues’ (2001) E-Com Research Project Report University of Geneva. google scholar
59. Schultz T, Kaufmann-Kohler G, Langer D and Bonnet V, Online Dispute Resolution: The State of the Art and the Issues(E-Com Research Project of the University of Geneva 2001). google scholar
60. Sevgi S, Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkim Açısından Çevrimiçi (Online) Tahkim Yöntemi (Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara 2021). google scholar
61. Shackelford SJ and Raymond A, ‘Building the Virtual Courthouse: Ethical Considerations for Design, Implementation, and Regulation in the World of ODR’ (2014) Wisconsin Law Review 615. google scholar
62. Smith S and Martinez J, ‘An Analytical Framework for Dispute System Design’ (2009) 14(4) Harvard Negotiation Law Review 123. google scholar
63. Songör Sayılır N, ‘Tüketici Hukukunda Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yolları’ (2024) 21(2) Çağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 158. google scholar
64. Songör Sayılır N, ‘Tüketici Hukukunda Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yolları’ (2024) 21(2) Çağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 158. google scholar
65. Şanlı C, Esen E and Ataman-Figanmeşe I, Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk (9th edn, Beta 2023). google scholar
66. Şanlı C, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları (7th edn, Beta Yayınları 2019). google scholar
67. Tandoğan Özbaykal N, ‘Tüketici Hakem Heyetlerinde İtirazın İptali Davası Sorunu ve 7063 Sayılı Kanun Sonrasında Verilen Yargı Kararlarının Değerlendirilmesi’ (2020) 26(1) Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 467. google scholar
68. Thompson J, ‘Self-driving Laws: Implementing AI into the Justice System’ (2023) 25 Yale Journal of Law & Technology 104. google scholar
69. Topal Ö, ‘Tüketici Hakem Heyeti ile Özellikle Tüketici Hakem Heyeti Kararına İtiraz Yargılamasında İcranın Geri Bırakılması Üzerine Düşünceler (Son Değişiklikler Çerçevesinde)’ (2024) 21(1) Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 293. google scholar
70. Trachtman JP, The International Economic Law Revolution (Harvard University Press 2023). google scholar
71. Trakman LE, ‘From the Medieval Law Merchant to E-Merchant Law’ (2003) 53(3) The University of Toronto Law Journal 265. google scholar
72. Tutumlu MA, ‘Tüketici Uyuşmazlıkları Açısından Tüketici Kavramı ve Bu Kavramın Kapsadığı Kişiler’ in O Ş Mccharty and M Dinç (eds), Tüketici Hukuku Davaları (Seçkin 2017). google scholar
73. van Gelder E, ‘The EU Approach to Consumer ODR’ (2019) 6(2) International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution 219. google scholar
74. Wahab MA, Katsh E and Rainey D (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (2nd edn, Eleven International Publishing 2021). google scholar
75. Wahab MA, Katsh E and Rainey D (eds), Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing 2012). google scholar
76. Yang L, ‘Self-Regulatory ODR in China's e-Commerce Market: An Examination of Alibaba's Taobao Platform and Crowdsourced ODR’ (2025) 6(2) Amicus Curiae 358. google scholar
77. Yaşar ND, Elektronik Tüketici Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümünde Alternatif Yollar: Çevrimiçi Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yöntemleri(Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Koç University, İstanbul 2019). google scholar
78. Zheng J, ‘The Recent Development of Online Arbitration Rules in China’ (2017) 26 Information & Communications Technology Law 135. google scholar
79. Zhu Y, ‘China’s Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Practice: The Case of the Hangzhou Internet Court’ (2020) 3(2) Asia Pacific Law Review 187. google scholar
80. NITI Aayog Expert Committee on ODR, Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India(October 2020) google scholar
81. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, ‘Small Claims Court’ https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/small_claims_court accessed 30 September 2025 National Center for State Courts, ‘Understanding Small Claims google scholar
82. Court’ https://www.ncsc.org accessed 30.09.2025 google scholar
83. Cortés P, ‘What is Online Dispute Resolution?’ (Law.ox.ac.uk, 2011) https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/dr_pablo_cortes.pdf accessed 1.10.2025 google scholar
84. Cortés P and Lodder A R, ‘Consumer Dispute Resolution Goes Online: Reflections on the Evolution of European Law for Out-Of-Court Redress’ (Lra.le.ac.uk, 2014) https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/33184/5/MJ_21_01_0014.pdf accessed 1 October 2025 google scholar
85. Cortés P, ‘What is Online Dispute Resolution?’ https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/drpablo_cortes.pdf accessed 1.10.2025 google scholar
86. Hörnle J, ‘Online Dispute Resolution – The Emperor’s New Clothes? Benefits and Pitfalls of Online Dispute Resolution and Its Application to Commercial Arbitration’ (2002) https://www.bileta.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Online-Dispute-Resolution-The- Emperors-New-Clothes-Benefits-and-Pitfalls-of-Online-Dispute-Resolution.pdf accessed 1 October 2025 google scholar
87. Thompson D, ‘The Growth of Online Dispute Resolution and Its Use in British Columbia’ (Paper presented to the CLEBC Civil Litigation Conference 2014) http://darinthompson.ca/about/the-growth-of-online-dispute-resolution-and-its-use-in-british- columbia/ accessed 4 August 2025. google scholar
88. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution (UNCITRAL 2017). google scholar
89. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of its Thirty-Second Session (Vienna, 30 November–4 December 2015) UN Doc A/CN.9/863 (UNCITRAL 2015) google scholar
90. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the Work of its Thirty-Third Session (New York, 29 February–4 March 2016) UN Doc A/CN.9/867 (UNCITRAL 2016) google scholar
91. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, E-Commerce and Development Report 2003 (United Nations 2003). google scholar
92. Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India, The NITI Aayog Expert Committee on ODR (2021) https://www.niti.gov.in accessed 8 August 2025. google scholar
93. Regulation (EU) 2024/3228 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 repealing Regulation (EU) No 524/2013, and amending Regulations (EU) 2017/2394 and 2018/1724 with regard to the discontinuation of the European Online Dispute Resolution Platform [2024] OJ L 3228/30. google scholar