The digital platforms of the sharing economy (PNEP) are being used more and more often, and in a variety of fields. It is therefore important to examine the recourse available to consumers when a problem arises. This is what our research does by studying the application, in PNEP user agreements, of the fairness and transparency measures set out in the Canadian consumer legal framework to facilitate consumers' access to justice, and by looking at consumers' perceptions and experiences of the dispute resolution mechanisms available to them.
Our analysis is based on the relationship between the objective dimension of access to justice, which we link to the contract, and its subjective dimension, which we link to the experience and perceptions of consumers. This enables our research to shed light on the gaps between the PNEP's offer of justice and users' sense of fairness and competence. It also lists the potential barriers to access to justice identified in our literature review, and reveals the actual barriers encountered by our research participants.
An analysis of the agreements of ten sharing economy platforms revealed the presence of clauses likely to limit access to justice. These include choice-of-court clauses, which determine in advance the competent forum in the event of a dispute, mandatory arbitration clauses and waiver clauses atclass action. In addition, we note that internal mechanisms or recourse to the credit card issuer - these were the remedies used by the participants - sometimes offer partial redress, as they do not provide the possibility of claiming the value of the loss suffered, if any; they therefore often limit recourse to the resolution and termination of the contract. Despite this, participants seemed satisfied with their experience.
Would they have been better served in terms of fairness if they had used external mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration, or gone to court? Our study of consumer protection legislation in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, as well as case law, suggests otherwise.
In terms of transparency, the analysis revealed a lack of clarity in the information offered, as well as a tendency to presume the consent of the consumer using the platform or purchasing the service, leading to a lack of awareness among participants of their rights and remedies. This lack of knowledge is one of the barriers to accessing justice, along with lack of guidance, incomplete redress and non-use of certain remedies, which may be linked to the cost barrier. For their part, respondents reported technical difficulties and difficulty in finding information or speaking to someone.
Finally, obstacles to access to justice in the sharing economy include the complexity of dispute resolution mechanisms and access to information.
