1 / 22

Building Trust: Consumer Dispute Resolution (B2C)

Building Trust: Consumer Dispute Resolution (B2C). Naja Felter Consumers International. Consumers International. Global federation of 263 independent consumer organisations in 119 countries E.g. developed countries: Brand names Consumer Reports (US) Consumentengids (Netherlands)

tamekah-blanchard
Télécharger la présentation

Building Trust: Consumer Dispute Resolution (B2C)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building Trust:Consumer Dispute Resolution (B2C) Naja Felter Consumers International

  2. Consumers International • Global federation of 263 independent consumer organisations in 119 countries • E.g. developed countries: Brand names • Consumer Reports (US) • Consumentengids (Netherlands) • Tests-Achats (Belgium) • Which? (UK) • Forbruker-rapporten (Norway) ……

  3. Do we have confidence? How many internet users shopped online in 2000? Norway: 19% Australia: 10% France: 7% Source: OECD “Business-to-consumer E-commerce statistics” from OECD workshop in Berlin 13 – 14 March 2001 on consumers in the online marketplace.

  4. KEY CONFIDENCE ISSUES • Novel Shopping • new requirements, new fraud opportunities • Privacy • Security • Authentication • Redress

  5. Redress • Consumers International study on providers of ADR online • Follows on from Consumers@shopping • 8 key criteria for assessment of providers • Major deficiencies/areas for improvement • Conclusions and Recommendations

  6. 1-2-3 Settle.com AllSettle.com BBB Online clickNsettle.com Cybercourt Cybersettle E-Mediator eResolution iCourthouse iLevel Internet Neutral Internet Ombudsman Mars NewCourtCity.com NovaForum.com ODR.NL Online Resolution Online Ombuds Office OnLine Disputes Resolution Forum SettleOnline SettleSmart SquareTrade The Virtual Magistrate U.S. Settle WebAssured.com Web Dispute Resolutions WEBdispute.com Webmediate Web Trader Online ADR Providers

  7. What makes for a good dispute resolution process? 1 • Lots of experience offline in ADR • Needs co-operation between parties • Can be complaints assistance, mediation, arbitration • Online adds additional dimensions • Some efficiency (e.g. geographically) • Some innovation (automatic settling systems)

  8. What makes for a good dispute resolution process? 2 • First, the firm has a good complaints handling, money-back guarantees, etc • ADR comes after the firm and the consumer can’t agree

  9. What makes for effective dispute resolution? 8 key principles based on EU and TACD; GBDe 1. Independence/Impartiality • Of the provider • Of the officials handling disputes Raises issues of: • Consumer representation, balance • Funding by business

  10. What makes for effective dispute resolution? • 2. Transparency • Up front disclosure of process and procedures • Publication of general statistics • Publication of arbitration results – critical

  11. What makes for effective dispute resolution? • 3. Availability • Geographically • Range of languages • 4. Affordability • Preferably free to consumer, or very low fees

  12. What makes for effective dispute resolution? • 5. Effectiveness • Visibility, easy to find • Timeliness • Competence of officers • Ease of use • Enforceable – arbitration binding on the business • Subject to oversight

  13. What makes for effective dispute resolution? • 6. Fair: Due Process • Both parties heard • No need for legal representation • 7. Legality/Liberty • Voluntary • Does not limit rights nor displace law enforcement actions • Decisions binding on trader not consumer

  14. What makes for effective dispute resolution? • 8. Oversight (third party) • Problem of inherent bias towards the paying party – most schemes, it’s business paying • No market forces operating in terms of consumer choice – choice of ADR by business • Standards established and adhered to through audited third party process, not self declaration

  15. Results - Consumers International Initial Study of ADR-online • Overview assessments of online ADR providers – no grading this time • 30 providers • 25 North American, 5 European • offering 36 distinct services • Few designed specifically for consumers • 23 for profit companies

  16. Results - Consumers International Initial Study of ADR-online • None met all criteria • Generally well described procedures • Too little attention to language - English • Few assisted with unco-operative merchants • None of the business providers balanced their governance structures – consumer and business representation

  17. Results - Consumers International Initial Study of ADR-online • Many limited their applicability • Most were disproportionately costly • Few reported well or transparently • Most were visible (easy to find), timely and easy to use

  18. Conclusions & Recommendations • Good online ADR should help reduce likelihood of needing court system • Doesn’t solve applicable law or forum • ADR suffering same problem as plethora of seal programs – too messy, too unsupervised for consumer trust to build, most still not meeting essential standards

  19. Conclusions & Recommendations • Too little consideration of type offered – e.g. inappropriateness of mediation for many B2C disputes; more thought for consumer designed services • Serious enforcement problems – “No Teeth” • should probably be linked to government ADR or trustmark with promise of compensation or money back • Trustmark at least provides minimum Code of Practice and a sanction (dismissal)

  20. Conclusions & Recommendations • Catering for non-English speakers essential • Costs can’t be higher than most B2C disputes • Consideration of balanced governance needed - credibility • Better transparency and reporting – not business “protection” services

  21. Conclusions & Recommendations • Inappropriate “mandatory” ADR and “binding” clauses need to be eliminated • Global standards needed • Ongoing independent oversight needed for trust to build

  22. How to get the study • Executive summary, conclusions and assessmentshttp://www.consumersinternational.org/campaigns/electronic/adr_web.pdf • Full reportcontact jmills@consint.org

More Related