China Consumers Association speaks out! Supports lawsuit against Disney.

[4] Recently, Shanghai Disneyland made headlines after being sued for forcibly checking visitors' bags and banning them from bringing their own food into the park.

The incident began in March this year when Wang, a junior at a political science and law university in Shanghai, was subjected to a forced bag search by park staff upon entering Shanghai Disneyland after bringing snacks with her. She was prohibited from bringing her snacks into the park, yet Shanghai Disney had not disclosed this special rule at the time of ticket purchase.

After entering the park, Xiao Wang bought a cotton candy for 30 yuan, but she believed that food prices inside the park were significantly higher than market prices—20 yuan for an ear of corn and 80 yuan for a turkey wing. Therefore, Xiao Wang believed that the rules set by Disneyland infringed upon her lawful rights and interests, and filed a lawsuit against Shanghai Disney Resort.

In fact, aside from Disney parks in Asian countries that have rules prohibiting bringing food, Disney parks in the United States and France do not have such regulations.

 People's Daily Online asks Shanghai Disneyland four questions:

Question one: Why the double standard? If Europe and America can do it, why can't Asia?

Question Two: On what grounds are bag searches mandatory, and how is tourists' privacy protected?

Third question: Is banning outside food for the sake of park hygiene? Does the food sold inside the park have no smell?

Question Four: Who will correct Disney’s “double standards”? Who will protect consumers’ rights?

On the morning of August 14,the China Consumers Association issued a statement supporting the college student's lawsuit against Shanghai Disney.Disney uses its special status to impose restrictions on consumers, and its “bag checks” constitute an act that infringes upon consumers’ personal rights and interests.

 A lawyer from Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm stated,Shanghai Disney has a duty to inform and explain format clauses such as park entry rules, and unlike ordinary format clauses, special provisions require conspicuous notice or explanation. Second, Shanghai Disney's rule prohibiting consumers from bringing food into the park clearly constitutes an unfair and unreasonable provision against consumers, in violation of Article 26 of the Consumer Protection Law.

According to Article 26 of the Consumer Protection Law:

  Business operators using standard terms in their business activities shall prominently draw consumers' attentionto matters of significant interest to consumers, such as the quantity and quality of goods or services, price or fees, performance period and method, safety precautions and risk warnings, after-sales service, and civil liability, and shall provide explanations upon consumers' request.

Business operatorsshall not, through standard terms, notices, declarations, in-store announcements, or other means, stipulate provisions that exclude or limit consumers' rights, reduce or exempt the operator's liability, or increase consumers' liability, which are unfair or unreasonable to consumers,and shall not use standard terms with technical means to force transactions. If standard terms, notices, declarations, in-store announcements, or similar contain the content listed in the preceding paragraph, such content shall be void.

 How can it be determined whether the rules set by a merchant are reasonable and fair?

First, businesses can establish corresponding rules to regulate consumer behavior during their operations, such as prohibiting smoking in shopping malls or banning photography in art galleries. These types of regulations, which aim to protect public interests or the business's own legitimate rights by restricting consumer behavior, are considered reasonable.Reasonableness depends on industry practices and public order and good customs.However, in this incident, it was mentioned that Disney parks in Europe and America allow food to be brought in. In fact, this means that banning food from being brought into the park is not an industry practice, and this rule at Shanghai Disney is clearly unreasonable.

Second, this is also an unfair rule.To judge whether it is fair, one must see whether the business profits by excluding or limiting consumers' rights.If an amusement park prohibits consumers from bringing their own food, and at the same time does not sell food inside or sells it at the same price as outside, then it can be considered fair. For example, if a restaurant bans bringing in drinks but also does not sell drinks itself, that would be fair to both parties. However, this rule at Shanghai Disney clearly restricts consumer rights to benefit itself, which is unfair.

Of course, unfair and unreasonable standards vary across different industries and should not be generalized; each case must be analyzed based on specific circumstances.

Shanghai Disney's blatant ban on bringing in food and beverages and its forced bag checks are not recent developments; it is reported that this "unfair clause" has been in effect for several years. During this period, complaints have been continuous, yet no action has been seen from the government or the courts. Consumers, being in an inherently weaker position relative to businesses and being relatively dispersed, find it difficult to unite in defense of their rights. If relevant government departments do not promptly and proactively safeguard the lawful rights and interests of consumers, then even without Shanghai Disney, various other consumer institutions will infringe upon consumers' lawful rights and interests.

(Article images are from public online sources; if there is any infringement, please contact for removal.)