This paper explores how disputes are being channelled, gradually with the support of technology, to a menu of dispute resolution options, which for civil cases often favour non-binding processes that enable an amicable settlement prior to exploring a more costly, confrontational, and formal adjudicative process. Accordingly, this paper first examines how Dispute System Design seeks to identify the most suitable dispute resolution option, contributing to a greater variety of process pluralism and improving dispute prevention to avoid unnecessary escalation. Secondly, it examines how (English) courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes steer disputants towards informal settlement options. Thirdly, the paper discusses how dispute resolution providers are leveraging data and technology to increase access and provide greater efficiency in the dispute resolution process. Lastly, the paper argues that as the number of litigants in person increases, there is a growing risk of alienating those who need the most protection from the civil justice system, thus adequate safeguards ought to be incorporated to prevent weaker parties from receiving second-class justice.

This paper reviews the largest marketplaces from the Dark Web, which have become a haven for illegal activities—ranging from drug sales to cybercrime—and unearths their dispute avoidance and resolution mechanisms that aim to increase trust in these dark markets. Illegal trading on the Dark Web owes its success from the enhanced security and transparency as well as for effective dispute resolution processes, which are unreviewable by traditional courts. The dispute system design of these processes include anonymity, informality, user-support, community involvement in decisions, adherence to transaction terms and dark market rules, encrypted communications, and blockchain-based enforcement. While these processes lack due process guarantees and are often skewed towards experienced vendors, they are very effective, transparent, and incentivise parties to settle. The paper discusses the adaptability of civil justice principles in these unregulated digital spaces, which ironically undermine the rule of law by fostering trust in illegal transactions and offers insights into how these innovative processes can inform the development of more robust online dispute resolution systems within the legal system.