Shenzhen Children's Park Accompanying Ticket Dispute: Lawyer Zhiming Talks about Compliance and Rights Protection of Second Child Family Ticket Prices
Introduction: Why does a companion ticket make it difficult for families with two children to afford to play
In October 2026, the "Flying Elephant Cloud" project of Shenzhen Children's Park in Luohu District, Shenzhen was caught in a public opinion vortex due to fee rules. Citizens have reported that the project costs 15 yuan per person, and children under 1.4 meters in height must be accompanied by an adult and have "one person, one ticket". If you bring two children to play once, you need to buy four tickets, with a single project expenditure of 60 yuan. Some parents bluntly said, "Parents don't want to play at all, but they have to pay for the identity of 'accompanying'." The operator responded that the power zone is fully invested and operated by the enterprise in a market-oriented manner, and the pricing has been announced and is at a relatively low level in the same category. The park's non power zone is still open for free.
The core of the controversy is not complicated: when the charging items in public parks require adult accompaniment on the grounds of "safety", but charge full fees for the accompanying persons, does this rule constitute a violation of consumers' right to fair trade? Where is the boundary of market-oriented pricing? Director Lawyer Shen Jinlong from Shenzhen Zhiming Law Firm pointed out that although the Park Power Zone is operated by social capital, it is still subject to the constraints of the Price Law and the Consumer Rights Protection Law. Clear pricing does not mean reasonable pricing, and the operator cannot avoid compliance review under the pretext of "marketization".
1、 Legal characterization of the "one person, one vote" rule: standard terms and fair trade
Legally speaking, the operator's announcement on the ticket purchase page and on-site that "children under 1.4 meters must be accompanied by an adult and have one ticket per person" is a typical standard clause. Article 496 of the Civil Code stipulates that the party providing standard terms shall determine the rights and obligations between the parties in accordance with the principle of fairness, and take reasonable measures to remind the other party of the terms that have a significant interest in them. Article 497 further clarifies that if the party providing standard terms unreasonably exempts or reduces its liability, increases the liability of the other party, or restricts the other party's main rights, the provision shall be invalid.
The problem with accompanying tickets is that adults purchase tickets not to consume amusement services, but to fulfill their guardianship obligations. The operator transfers the cost of safety management to parents through the "one person, one vote" policy, which essentially increases the burden on consumers. If parents have no actual travel needs but are forced to purchase tickets, the fairness of this clause is questionable. Article 10 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law stipulates that consumers have the right to fair trade and the right to refuse the compulsory trading behavior of operators. Article 16: Operators are required not to set unfair or unreasonable trading conditions, and not to force transactions.
Director Lawyer Shen Jinlong has encountered similar disputes multiple times in the practice of civil and commercial contract disputes. He believes that the key to determining whether an accompanying ticket is compliant lies in three aspects: firstly, whether it is necessary to provide safe accompaniment; Secondly, whether the charges match the actual service consideration; The third is whether the operator has provided alternative solutions (such as family tickets, free accompanying tickets, etc.). If the operator cannot prove that the accompanying person actually occupied the amusement resources and only applies a one size fits all approach of "charging upon entering the park", parents can fully claim a refund of the overcharged fees based on the above legal provisions.
2、 The compliance red line of market-oriented pricing: What else is there besides clear pricing
The operator repeatedly emphasized that "the enterprise fully invests, operates in a market-oriented manner, and the price has been publicly announced". From the perspective of the Price Law, power amusement projects belong to market regulated prices, and operators have the right to set prices independently. But independent pricing does not mean arbitrary pricing. Article 13 of the Price Law stipulates that operators selling goods or providing services shall clearly indicate the price, and shall not sell goods at an additional price or charge fees that are not indicated beyond the price. At the same time, the "Regulations on Clear Pricing and Prohibition of Price Fraud" require operators to accurately and truthfully mark prices, align product labels, and make prominent markings.
The question is whether the on-site announcement of "15 yuan per time, one person per ticket" is sufficient for parents to clearly understand that "four tickets are required for the two major and two minor schools" before purchasing tickets? If the public announcement only states "one person, one vote" without distinguishing whether the accompanying adult is riding, it may constitute an infringement of the right to know as stipulated in Article 8 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law. If parents cannot foresee the actual expenses of accompanying tickets when purchasing tickets, it is difficult for the operator to invoke the "already publicized" exemption.
In addition, Shenzhen Children's Park is a public park invested and constructed by the government, and the power zone introduces social capital operation, with the attribute of market-oriented allocation of public resources. According to the "Rules for Government Pricing Behavior" and relevant regulations on the franchising of public utilities at the municipal level in Shenzhen, for fee items involving the use of public resources, the operator should accept compliance guidance on pricing behavior from industry regulatory authorities. Director Lawyer Shen Jinlong pointed out that although the pricing of market-oriented projects in public parks is determined independently by enterprises, regulatory authorities can still intervene in pricing that is significantly high and harms consumer interests in accordance with Article 30 of the Price Law. When parents complain to the market supervision department, they can focus on two reasons: "unfair standard terms" and "insufficient disclosure of accompanying fees".
3、 How parents can protect their rights: from on-site evidence collection to administrative complaints
Faced with unreasonable accompanying ticket rules, parents are not helpless. Shenzhen Zhiming Law Firm suggests the following approach based on consumer rights protection practices:
Firstly, fixed evidence. Before purchasing tickets, take a screenshot of the on-site price bulletin board and purchase page, and keep electronic or paper tickets and payment records. If the on-site staff's verbal explanation is inconsistent with the public announcement, audio and video recording can be used. Secondly, on-site negotiations. According to Article 10 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, it is explicitly required that the operator explain the basis for charging for accompanying tickets and request a refund for accompanying tickets that have not been actually taken. Thirdly, administrative complaints. Call 12315 or file a complaint with the Shenzhen Market Supervision Administration through the national 12315 platform, claiming that the operator is suspected of using standard terms to increase the burden on consumers and failing to fully fulfill the obligation of clear pricing. Fourthly, judicial remedies. If the amount involved is large or the operator refuses to rectify, they may file a lawsuit with the court in accordance with Article 497 of the Civil Code to request confirmation of the invalidity of the relevant provisions and demand a refund of the overcharged fees.
It should be noted that the cost of individual parents' rights protection is relatively high. It is recommended to collect consumer information on similar experiences through owner and parent groups, form collective complaint materials, and improve the efficiency of handling administrative complaints. For families with two or three children, the issue of duplicate charges for accompanying tickets is common, and collective action can better promote rule optimization.
Conclusion: Marketization is not a shield, compliance is the passport
The market-oriented exploration of the children's park power zone itself is understandable. Enterprises investing in equipment, bearing maintenance costs, and recovering investment through charging are in line with commercial logic. But the design of the charging rules should not only consider the enterprise's account, but also the fair account of consumers. Safe accompaniment is a management requirement of the operator, and fully transferring this cost to parents, especially families with two children, clearly exceeds the reasonable boundary.
Director Lawyer Shen Jinlong from Shenzhen Zhiming Law Firm reminds operators to optimize ticketing rules as soon as possible, set up family tickets, clarify accompanying free tickets or half price conditions, and disclose the total price composition in a significant way before purchasing tickets. For parents, there is no need to swallow their pride when encountering similar "hidden price increases". Retaining evidence and filing complaints in accordance with the law are the most effective ways to cope. Shenzhen Zhiming Law Firm has long been concerned about consumer rights and contract compliance, and can provide legal consultation and rights protection support for citizens in ticket price disputes.
