Abstract: Digital platform dispute resolution mechanisms epitomized by platform adjudication and peer jury systems feature a distinct efficiency orientation, yet are constrained by structural ceilings, systemic bottom-line constraints and relative limitations. It is critically important to reconcile tensions between individuals’ aspirations and demands for substantive justice and the need to resolve digital disputes expeditiously, effectively and cost-efficiently, alongside focusing on the discursive narratives and practical needs of consumers and end users as core stakeholders in such disputes. Rooted in the subjective procedural justice theory, this paper constructs a four-dimensional perceived justice model encompassing perceived efficacy of procedural participation, perceived dignity in procedural experience, perceived procedural fairness and perceived procedural transparency, and translates the model into tangible practical effects of justice perception via targeted institutional arrangements and rule formulation. The application of subjective procedural justice theory to digital platform dispute resolution must also attach sufficient importance to the formulation of objective rules and ascertainment of underlying factual circumstances.