In the rapidly evolving landscape of digital conflict resolution, there is widespread euphoria among global stakeholders about the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based automation across various fields. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) stands out as one such domain where AI and related technologies like Blockchain and Smart Contracts are often heralded as the ultimate success factors, but ODR Portal negates this notion. This automation perspective is fundamentally flawed, as it completely overlooks the Automation Error Theory (AET) and its profound implications on reliability and outcomes. The true strength of any initiative, whether in dispute resolution or beyond, lies not in flashy technological tools but in the manpower behind it—the depth of expertise and experience that human professionals bring to the table. This human-centric approach ensures that institutions or organisations equipped with such invaluable resources achieve unparalleled impact and authority.

Consider, for instance, the ODR Portal as the global techno-legal powerhouse, established back in 2004 by the Perry4Law Organisation and Perry4Law Techno-Legal Base (PTLB) under ODR India. This platform merges open-source technology with profound legal acumen to deliver efficient, secure solutions for a broad spectrum of global conflicts, including those in e-commerce, finance, employment, international trade, cryptocurrencies, and digital assets. Similarly, this smart ODR Portal designed for smart people emphasises tech neutrality and user-friendly interfaces, making it accessible even to less tech-savvy individuals like seniors, while boasting over two decades of techno-legal experience that positions it as the undisputed leader in the ODR world. With roots tracing back to India’s early advancements in cyber mediation under the Information Technology Act of 2000, which legalised electronic records and digital signatures, this portal has evolved through key milestones, including the 2015 Arbitration Act amendments and the surge in virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic, resolving thousands of cases via its online ODR Portals.

To truly appreciate this dominance, let’s delve into specific, real-life situations and examples that resonate with the contemporary digital era. Imagine a complex cyber crime scenario spanning multiple jurisdictions, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, demanding urgent investigation and resolution. In such cases, approximately 99% of global ODR service providers would be immediately disqualified from handling the matter effectively. These providers often lack the foundational knowledge to navigate cyber law intricacies, let alone the nuances of conflict of laws across borders. The ODR Portal, however, excels here by serving as a neutral hub aligned with UNCITRAL standards, harmonising jurisdictions in trade and cryptocurrency conflicts while respecting national sovereignty and integrating advanced cyber forensics from PTLB’s toolkit for evidence analysis and admissibility.

Even among the remaining 1% of ODR providers that might possess some relevant capabilities, a critical evaluation reveals significant shortcomings. AI-driven automation, while efficient for routine tasks, cannot substitute for expertise-based investigation and dispute resolution. Suppose a victim approaches a hypothetical provider called Example ODR, which relies heavily on a fully AI-automated system. The process might begin with feeding the complaint details into the platform, followed by an algorithmic assignment to a panelist. But what if that panelist lacks the specialised techno-legal expertise required? AI automation overemphasises technological processes at the expense of incorporating sufficient human proficiency, leading to potential failures in handling intricate disputes. Therefore, any individual seeking dispute resolution should prioritise verifying the expertise of the personnel involved before engaging an ODR service provider.

Now, let’s examine the reverse scenario to underscore this point further. Consider another provider, Example 2 ODR, which operates with a straightforward technological setup enabling stakeholder interactions via e-mails, chats, video conferencing, and similar tools, without relying on advanced AI automation. This provider, however, is staffed by distinguished experts boasting decades of techno-legal experience in cyber law and cyber crime matters. It becomes evident that even a simple e-mail inquiry to such a capable entity proves far more effective than engaging a glitzy AI-based system lacking substantive expertise. The ODR Portal exemplifies this by employing traditional methods like negotiation, mediation, and arbitration alongside innovative asynchronous tools—potentially including e-mail communications—that ensure evidence integrity and procedural flexibility, all while drawing on its extensive history of resolving cross-border human rights disputes and cyber attacks.

A closely related challenge is the narrow specialisation of most ODR providers. Around 99% of them focus on just one or two fields, typically involving straightforward legal issues in areas like e-commerce or finance. In the aforementioned cyber crime example, even the top-tier providers might falter if they aren’t equipped to manage sophisticated techno-legal issues. Before selecting any ODR service, users must confirm whether the provider actively handles the specific type of case at hand. The majority are inherently incapable of addressing modern-day complexities, such as AI surveillance violations, data breaches in Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), or blockchain disputes, where the ODR Portal shines through its integration with the Centre Of Excellence For Protection Of Human Rights In Cyberspace (CEPHRC), ensuring outcomes aligned with international standards like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Rome Statute.

To illustrate the advantages of a comprehensive ODR system like ODR Portal of Sovereign P4LO and PTLB over specialised ones, consider the following comparison:

Aspect	ODR Portal (Comprehensive)	Purpose-Specific ODR Systems
Years of Expertise	Over 20 years since 2004	Typically 5-10 years, limited to niche areas
Coverage Areas	Traditional (negotiation, mediation, arbitration) and emerging (cross-border, human rights, crypto, cyber crimes)	Single or dual fields (e.g., e-commerce or finance only)
Technological Integration	Advanced safeguards with open-source tools, tech-neutral interfaces	Often AI-heavy but lacking depth in forensics or human rights
Jurisdictional Handling	Global harmonisation with UNCITRAL alignment	Limited to specific regions or laws
Human Rights Focus	Prioritised via CEPHRC integration	Rarely addressed comprehensively
Success Rates	High, with multilingual accessibility for all ages	Variable, often lower in complex cases

This table highlights why discerning users, or “smart people,” gravitate toward platforms like the ODR Portal for its equitable, secure resolutions.

Turning to the core theme of this article: the efficacy of ODR portals utilizsng e-mails as a primary mode of interaction. Suppose a cyber crime victim initiates contact with a capable provider like Example 2 ODR via e-mail to seek resolution. Does this seemingly basic method diminish the outcome? Absolutely not. The e-mail inquiry can be seamlessly integrated into the portal’s system by an administrator once procedural formalities and fees are addressed, transforming it into a formal cyber crime dispute case. E-mails offer unparalleled convenience for handling ongoing queries, clarifications, and the exchange of additional documents—far more practical than repeatedly logging into a portal interface. This approach dispels the misconception that only cutting-edge technology can deliver remedies; in reality, technology serves as a facilitator up to a point, after which human capabilities become the decisive factor in adjudication and resolution.

If technology-driven ODR portals were truly superior in every aspect, traditional courts might become obsolete. Yet, despite the time-consuming, costly, and often unproductive nature of conventional litigation, ODR has struggled to fully disrupt judicial systems. Governments tend to favor entrenched traditional frameworks over innovative reforms that promote transparency and efficiency. While some technological elements may be adopted—such as virtual hearings— a comprehensive ODR or e-court ecosystem remains elusive for years to come, as evidenced by the gradual evolution in India from 2002 onward.

It’s time for a paradigm shift in user attitudes. Rather than defaulting to litigation, individuals should embrace ODR systems for their cost-effectiveness, speed, and superior results. For disputes in a single field, a specialised ODR might suffice; however, for intricate techno-legal matters involving conflict of laws, only select providers capable of such handling should be chosen. Look beyond the allure of technological glamour and hype—evaluate the substance. If direct information on a provider’s capabilities is scarce, scrutinise affiliated resources like blogs, websites, and related projects. Ultimately, even a simple e-mail to an expert ODR Service Provider can prove a more potent tool for resolution than an elaborate AI system devoid of genuine expertise, as the portal’s track record in resolving thousands of cases through ethical, rights-focused processes demonstrates. By prioritising human expertise integrated with accessible tools like e-mails, open source tools and tech neutral systems, the future of ODR promises not just efficiency but true justice in the digital age.