The increasing volume of digital trades inevitably generates more disputes. An efficient online dispute resolution mechanism is an important digital trade promotion policy measure, as it ensures the cyber order and strengthens online users’ confidence. The immediate implication is the furtherance of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.3 on better access to justice and SDG 16.7 on having a responsive judiciary. But having an online judiciary does not only improve SDG 16. Drawing insights from the Internet Courts in China, the disputes arisen from the voluminous amount of digital trades provide more opportunities for the judiciary to contribute to other SDGs, such as SDG 2 (food safety), 3 (public health), 4 (online education), 8 (equality), 9 (intellectual property and innovation) and 10 (employment). Whilst digital trades can promote SDGs, they are usually private/commercial interests-oriented and only incidentally benefit the SDGs. Inevitably there will be occasional problems (e.g. irresponsible commercial behavior or market failures) which could undermine the SDGs. By contrast, the online courts are public interests-oriented, with the goal of maintaining public order and development. This legal policy measure helps align private digital trades and public SDGs. The judgements—coupled with widespread news reporting and subsequent response by other relevant public organs—help monitor and ensure proper sustainable development.

Two major policy recommendations emerge from the study. First, having a public, court-based system contributes more to the SDGs than having private dispute resolutions mechanisms (e.g. private and confidential arbitration or mediation) alone. The latter will not lead to publicly-available and normative judgements that serve as public guidance for the market and the SDGs. At the same time, other public organs become better informed—via the disputes in public courts—of the latest market developments and needs and can act accordingly. Second, it is helpful to broadly define the scope of jurisdiction of the online dispute resolution organs. This strategically allows the courts to hear more cases from the vast amount of digital trades, and accordingly offer guidance on more SDG areas and issues.