Preview

Lex Russica

Advanced search

The Metaverse: Issues of Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution

https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2025.222.5.139-149

Abstract

The paper examines the jurisdictional aspects of dispute resolution in the metaverse, a digital world whose key features include the use of immersive technologies (virtual reality); user representation through avatars; conducting transactions using blockchain; the existence of centralized and decentralized platforms; the availability of intangible assets and NFTs in commercial turnover. The author provides a classification of disputes that may arise in the metaverse, namely disputes between users and platform operators; disputes between users; disputes over intellectual property. In the first category, the author highlights legal conflicts related to virtual real estate, as well as disputes over the personal data of users of platforms whose operators cannot guarantee protection from hacker attacks. Regarding disputes between users, the author notes that many of them are related to the lack of any control in the metaverse over the provision of virtual services, the creation of digital assets and transactions. Turning to the question of applicable law and jurisdiction, the author points out that in most cases the relevant provisions are included in the user agreements of individual platforms and are not subject to change. The paper discusses three dispute resolution tools that arise in the metaverse: «traditional» — in state courts or in arbitration; «modified», where the rules of procedure are adapted to the specifics of virtual legal relations, and «decentralized» — in the framework of online dispute resolution, combining elements of blockchain, crowdsourcing and artificial intelligence.

About the Author

Anastasia A. Selkova
Yakovlev Ural State Law University
Russian Federation

Anastasia A. Selkova, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of Civil Procedure,

Ekaterinburg.



References

1. Ambrosio A. Past, present and future of Virtual Reality: Analysis of its technological variables and definitions. Culture & History Digital Journal. 2020;9(1):2-10.

2. Asoskov AV. Conflict regulation of contractual obligations. Moscow: Infotropik Media Publ.; 2012. (In Russ.).

3. Dolganichev VV. «Opt-in» versus «opt-out»: Two different models of group formation in class action. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess [Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure]. 2015;2:20-24. (In Russ.).

4. Kurochkin SA. Arbitration and international commercial arbitration: A monograph. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2021. (In Russ.).

5. Lastowka F. The laws of virtual worlds. California Law Review. 2004;1:8-12.

6. Lemley M. Law, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2018;5:10511138.

7. Neil M. Privacy’s other path: Recovering the law of confidentiality. Georgetown Law Journal. 2007;96(1):123182.

8. Orin S. The problem of perspective in internet law. Georgetown Law Journal. 2003;91:362-364.

9. Packin N. The Cambridge handbook of law and policy for NFTs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2024.

10. Risch M. Virtual rule of law. West Virginia Law Review. 2009;112(1):2-52.

11. Samuli L. Why playing augmented reality games feels meaningful to players? The roles of imagination and social experience. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021;121:2-10.

12. Sanisloy S. A View of the future of the metaverse economy on the basis of the global financial system: New opportunities and risks. Journal of Corporate Governance, Insurance, and Risk Management. 2023;10(1):28-41.

13. Saw C. The subsistence and enforcement of copyright and trade mark rights in the metaverse. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 2023;3:371-384.

14. Sebastian G. A Descriptive study on metaverse: Cybersecurity risks, controls, and regulatory framework. International Journal of Security and Privacy in Pervasive Computing. 2023;14(1):2-14.

15. Tan J. Blockchain arbitration for NFT-related disputes. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal. 2023;16(1):145186.

16. Travis A. Pokemon Go: Emerging liability arising from virtual trespass for augmented reality applications. Texas A&M Journal of Property Law. 2018;4:273-295.

17. Werbach K. The song remains the same: What cyberlaw might teach the next internet economy. Florida Law Review. 2017;69(3):887-957.

18. William T. When the virtual and real worlds collide: Beginning to address the clash between real property rights and augmented reality location-based technologies through a federal do-not-locate registry. Iowa Law Review. 2017;103(1):331-366.


Review

For citations:


Selkova A.A. The Metaverse: Issues of Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution. Lex Russica. 2025;78(5):139-149. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2025.222.5.139-149

Views: 245


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1729-5920 (Print)
ISSN 2686-7869 (Online)