Purpose: the article examines the main problems associated the regulatory acts of Japan – The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, The Banking Act, The Insurance Business Act, lists the types of disputes subject to alternative settlement, identified the parties to the dispute. To achieve this goal, the article must solve the following tasks: to determine whether there are institutions in Japan that provide services for resolving disputes; to investigate the main problems associated with the definition of the concept and types of dispute, the conditions for the transfer of a dispute to the competent authority. Methods: this article is based on an interdisciplinary concept of research, which allowed to distinguish the distinctive features of the legal regulation of the settlement of disputes in Malaysia. Results: acts of Japan – The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, The Banking Act, The Insurance Business Act, – refer to disputes – disputes resolved by Designated Dispute Resolution Organizations, the so-called financial DDRO. Financial disputes are disputes between suppliers and consumers of services. The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act details the persons, whose activities fall within the definition of provider services. A brief list of service providers is available on the website of Japan's main regulator, the Financial Services Agency. The list include: Japanese banking institutions, branches and representative offices of foreign banks, business operators of instruments, insurance companies, trust companies, markets, foreign audit firms. However, unlike other countries of the Asia-Pacific region, consumers of services can be both physical and legal entities. Conclusions and Relevance : the materials presented in the article show the special role of Designated Dispute Resolution Organizations in resolving domestic disputes in Japan. The practical application of its results will improve the Russian legislation in the field of resolving disputes.