This article examines the effectiveness of out-of-court procedures, in particular in the form of online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms, in the settlement of business-to-consumer (B2C) disputes. It offers a comparative perspective of two public ODR initiatives: , a Brazilian ODR platform, and the EU-provided ODR platform. Focusing on the institutional and procedural design of these two platforms, we highlight the factors and incentives that might contribute to increasing consumers’ trust and traders’ engagement in ODR procedures. The article relies on a large dataset from , consisting of a sample of more than 800,000 consumer complaints. While the EU ODR platform is not yet very well known among EU consumers, the Brazilian platform is becoming widely popular among Brazilian consumers. It is put forward that this popularity could be the result of the procedural design of the Brazilian platform, which serves as a direct communication channel between the trader and the consumer. Furthermore, we argue that the EU ODR platform could be more effective if the incentives for both parties, traders and consumers, to use ODR were reinforced. The article provides further policy recommendations on how the potential of ODR can be better exploited in light of the two ODR platforms examined.

中文翻译：

---

成功还是失败？——消费者 ODR 平台在巴西和欧盟的有效性

本文研究了庭外程序在解决企业对消费者 (B2C) 争议中的有效性，特别是在线争议解决 (ODR) 机制的形式。它提供了两个公共 ODR 倡议的比较视角：巴西 ODR 平台和欧盟提供的 ODR 平台。重点关注这两个平台的制度和程序设计，我们重点介绍了可能有助于增加消费者信任和贸易商参与 ODR 程序的因素和激励措施。这篇文章依赖于来自 的大型数据集，其中包含超过 800,000 个消费者投诉的样本。虽然欧盟 ODR 平台在欧盟消费者中的知名度还不是很高，但巴西平台在巴西消费者中越来越受欢迎。有人提出，这种流行可能是巴西平台程序设计的结果，该平台是交易者和消费者之间的直接沟通渠道。此外，我们认为，如果加强对贸易商和消费者双方使用 ODR 的激励措施，欧盟 ODR 平台可能会更加有效。本文就如何根据所考察的两个 ODR 平台更好地利用 ODR 的潜力提供了进一步的政策建议。