header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 September 2012 / Pablo Cortes
Issue: 7528 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , ADR
printer mail-detail

The next big thing?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Pablo Cortés provides some thoughts on the proposed consumer ADR & ODR initiatives

At the end of November 2011, the European Commission published two proposals in the field of consumer alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The first one is a Directive on consumer ADR that requires member states to ensure the provision and availability of ADR entities that comply with legal standards for resolving disputes between traders and consumers (COM(2011) 793/2). The second proposal is a Regulation on consumer online dispute resolution (ODR) which requires the establishment of a pan-European ODR platform that will become a single point of entry for resolving online consumer complaints arising from e-commerce (C(2011) 794/2). The platform, which is expected to be fully operational in 2015, will link complainants to approved ADR entities. Both proposals are due to be adopted into law by the end of 2012, and implemented in all member states 18 months later.

The commission proposal

The Directive on consumer ADR

The proposed ADR Directive requires member states to ensure the provision

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll