Download article

Authors: Ochilboev, Abbosbek

Title: The Role of Smart Courts and Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Consumer Protection: A Comparative Analysis of Civil Law Systems

Abstract: This article examines how smart courts and artificial intelligence can strengthen consumer protection in civil law systems while also creating new risks for fair trial rights and equality before the law. It compares developments in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and China, focusing on online filing, virtual hearings, automated case management, AI-assisted document review, and judicial decision-support tools. The article argues that these technologies can improve access to justice for consumers by reducing delay, lowering costs, simplifying small claims procedures, and supporting cross-border dispute resolution. At the same time, it shows that algorithmic bias, black-box reasoning, automation bias, data protection concerns, and digital exclusion may undermine the very protective function that consumer law is meant to serve. The comparative analysis suggests that AI is most defensible in assistant functions, such as triage, translation, document organization, and procedural guidance, but is far more problematic when it approaches substantive adjudication. The article concludes that smart courts can contribute meaningfully to consumer justice only if they are designed around transparency, human oversight, inclusivity, and effective procedural safeguards.

Keywords: Smart courts; artificial intelligence; consumer protection; access to justice; digital justice

Cite as: Ochilboev, A. (2026). The Role of Smart Courts and Artificial Intelligence in Enhancing Consumer Protection: A Comparative Analysis of Civil Law Systems. Studia Juridica et Politica Jaurinensia, 13(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.71100/STUDIA.2026.1.6

Doi: 10.71100/STUDIA.2026.1.6

References:

1. Briggs, L. J. (2016). Civil courts structure review: Final report. Judiciary of England and Wales. https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/civil-courts-structure-review-final-report/
2. Buocz, T. J. (2018). Artificial intelligence in court: Legitimacy problems of AI assistance in the judiciary. Retskraft – Copenhagen Journal of Legal Studies, 2(1), 41–59. https://retskraft.dk/journal/2-1/41-59%20Boucz.pdf
3. Citron, D. K. & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–33. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss1/2
4. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) (England and Wales) (CPR).
5. Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC (Consumer Rights Directive)
6. Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive, ADR Directive).
7. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2018). European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/cepej-european-ethical-charter-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-judicial-systems-and-their-environment
8. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (COM(2021) 759 final).
9. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
10. Guo, M. (2021). Internet courts' challenges and future in China. Computer Law & Security Review, 40, 105522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105522
11. Hagan, M. D. (2018). A human-centered design approach to access to justice: Generating new prototypes and hypotheses for interventions to make courts user-friendly. Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality, 6(2), 199–239. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijlse/vol6/iss2/2
12. Hintze, A. (2016, November 14). Understanding the four types of artificial intelligence. Government Technology. https://www.govtech.com/computing/Understanding-the-Four-Types-of-Artificial-Intelligence.html
13. HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). (2018). HM Courts and Tribunals Service reform programme: Final business case. Ministry of Justice. https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/hm-courts-tribunals-service-reform-digital-services-evaluation
14. Jhering, R. von. (1898). Geist des römischen Rechts auf den verschiedenen Stufen seiner Entwicklung (Teil 2, Abt. 2, 5th ed.). Breitkopf und Härtel.
15. Katsh, E. & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2017). Digital justice: Technology and the internet of disputes. Oxford University Press. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3508311
16. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Artificial intelligence. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial%20intelligence
17. Molbæk-Steensig, H. & Quemy, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence and fair trial rights. In Quintavalla, A. & Temperman, J. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights (pp. 265–280). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780192882486.003.0018
18. Morkhat, P. M. (2018). Legal personality of artificial intelligence in the field of intellectual property law: Civil law issues [Doctoral thesis, Russian State Academy of Intellectual Property].
19. Öcalan v. Turkey, App. No. 46221/99, Grand Chamber, 12 May 2005.
20. Paterson, J. M. & Maker, Y. (2024). Consumer protection law and AI. In Lim, E. & Morgan, P. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Private Law and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 113–134). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108980197.007
21. Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted on 20 August 2021, effective from 1 November 2021 (PIPL).
22. Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 (European Small Claims Procedure Regulation).
23. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR).
24. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act, AI Act).
25. Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Online Dispute Resolution Regulation, ODR Regulation).
26. Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 41(4), 1114–1133. https://doi.org/10.53637/ZGUX2213
27. Stern, R. E., Liebman, B. L., Roberts, M. E. & Wang, A. Z. (2021). Automating fairness? Artificial intelligence in the Chinese courts. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 59(3), 515–553. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2940/
28. Susskind, R. (2019). Online courts and the future of justice. Oxford University Press.
29. Tang, Z. S. (2025). Smart court: The court of the future. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009319232