Are We There Yet? Navigating the Blurred Lines Between ADR and ODR

As artificial intelligence and digital tools transform nearly every professional field, dispute resolution is no exception. But are these technologies merely enhancing traditional ADR—or are they fundamentally reshaping it?

The widespread adoption of video conferencing, AI-assisted case management, and online negotiation platforms has rapidly moved dispute resolution online. What was once the exception is now the norm. As a result, the boundary between Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has become increasingly blurred. But does this distinction still matter? I believe it does—because how we define and design these processes directly affects fairness, access, and the role of the human decision-maker.

From Court Alternative to Digital Default

ADR has long been valued for its flexibility, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Whether through mediation, arbitration, or hybrid models like med-arb, it has provided meaningful alternatives to litigation. Technology now plays an integral role in this landscape—but it’s not neutral. Its influence on how we communicate, decide, and resolve disputes must be thoughtfully assessed.

• Mediation continues to be shaped by digital platforms, online document sharing, and AI-supported intake systems. These tools increase access and efficiency, but the mediator’s core role—interpreting emotion, managing dynamics, and guiding resolution—remains profoundly human.
• Arbitration benefits from virtual hearings, e-filing, and AI-enhanced legal research. Yet, arbitrators still evaluate evidence and render enforceable awards based on discretion and judgment.

Pre-pandemic, ODR was often seen as a niche. Today, it is central to the field. But what exactly is it?

ODR: More Than Just ADR Online

ODR refers not simply to ADR conducted over the internet, but to a spectrum of technology-driven approaches:

• Digitized ADR: Traditional mediation or arbitration conducted virtually.
• Technology-assisted ADR: Human-led resolution supported by AI tools such as triage systems or predictive analytics.
• Fully autonomous resolution: Smart contracts and algorithmic processes resolving disputes without human involvement.

This final category raises the greatest concern. While it may be useful for narrow, high-volume disputes (e.g., e-commerce chargebacks), it lacks the discretion and fairness required in more complex or rights-based matters. Automation must always be accompanied by human oversight.

Setting Ethical Standards: The ICODR Framework

As digital processes proliferate, ethical clarity is essential. The International Council for Online Dispute Resolution (ICODR) has articulated nine foundational standards to guide the development and operation of ODR systems:

1. Transparent – Disclose how processes and technologies function, including AI influences.
2. Secure – Ensure strong data protections and response protocols.
3. Legal – Comply with and communicate relevant legal obligations.
4. Fair and Impartial – Uphold procedural fairness and disclose conflicts of interest.
5. Equal – Address digital divides and avoid systemic bias.
6. Confidential – Clarify data use, retention, and privacy safeguards.
7. Competent – Require relevant legal, cultural, and technological expertise.
8. Accountable – Include auditability and meaningful human oversight.
9. Accessible – Make systems usable regardless of ability or digital literacy.

These principles are not aspirational—they are essential to ensure integrity and trust in digitally supported dispute resolution.

AI’s Expanding Role: Mediation vs. Arbitration

While AI now supports both mediation and arbitration, its application differs significantly:

For example, in a landlord-tenant matter, AI might facilitate intake and support early settlement discussions. But if arbitration is needed, a neutral must apply legal principles to evidence. Here, technology supports—rather than replaces—the human element.

Integration Without Abdication

The path forward is not an either/or between ADR and ODR. It is a hybrid reality. As professionals, we must ensure that technology enhances—not undermines—fairness, access, and process integrity. That means:

• Ensuring robust privacy and cybersecurity protections.
• Bridging digital access gaps for vulnerable users.
• Preserving the human aspects of resolution: empathy, discretion, and procedural justice.

Conclusion: A Responsibility to Lead

So, has ADR become ODR? Not entirely. And not yet.

As the lines between the two continue to blur, we must remain vigilant. Mediation and arbitration are grounded in trust, neutrality, and ethical practice. These foundations must be preserved, even as our tools evolve.

Our responsibility is to lead this transformation—not to let it lead us. That means shaping digital dispute resolution with purpose, ensuring that human judgment remains at the centre, and recognizing that fairness is not just a feature—it’s the foundation.