Movie tickets cannot be refunded or changed—who will address the unfair terms?
[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
Case review
Mr. Wang ordered two movie tickets for the same evening at a cinema through an online platform, but after the tickets were issued, he realized he had mistakenly selected the following evening. Since the ticketing platform had no refund process, Mr. Wang immediately contacted the platform's customer service to request a change, but was told to contact the cinema. Unexpectedly, the cinema took a tough stance, refusing to refund or change the tickets, citing that Mr. Wang had checked and agreed to a "no refunds, no changes" policy before purchase. Frustrated, Mr. Wang filed a complaint with the market regulatory authority.
Mr. Wang ordered two movie tickets for the same evening at a cinema through an online platform, but after the tickets were issued, he realized he had mistakenly selected the following evening. Since the ticketing platform had no refund process, Mr. Wang immediately contacted the platform's customer service to request a change, but was told to contact the cinema. Unexpectedly, the cinema took a tough stance, refusing to refund or change the tickets, citing that Mr. Wang had checked and agreed to a "no refunds, no changes" policy before purchase. Frustrated, Mr. Wang filed a complaint with the market regulatory authority.
[1] Image source from the internet; if infringement occurs, please delete!
After investigation, the market regulatory authority found that the cinema had signed a cooperation agreement with a third-party online ticketing platform, disabling the refund and change functions on that platform. Viewers were forced to agree to the standard contract clause of "no refunds or changes after purchase" before they could buy tickets for the cinema on the third-party platform. Multiple recent complaints about refund and change requests had been made, but the cinema had refused all of them, insisting on its no-refund, no-change policy.
The market regulatory authority transferred the leads on the online platform's violations to the platform's local regulatory authority and, following legal procedures, issued an administrative penalty decision against the cinema, ordering it to immediately correct the illegal behavior and imposing a fine of 6,000 RMB.
After the cinema applied for administrative reconsideration, the district government upheld the market regulatory authority's penalty decision. The cinema argued that the content displayed on the ticketing webpage was edited by the third-party online sales channel and was unrelated to it, claiming the administrative decision lacked factual and legal basis. It then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Huaiyin District Court, seeking to revoke the penalty and reconsideration decisions made by the district government and the market regulatory authority.
[1] Court Opinion
The Huaiyin District Court found through trial that the cinema's ticket sales agreement with the online platform stipulated that the cinema authorized the platform to sell tickets and collect revenue, with no refunds or changes allowed for tickets sold on the platform, and the cinema bore responsibility for product quality and service issues arising during the period.
Based on this, the court held that, according to Article 3 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the market regulatory authority correctly identified a buyer-seller relationship between the cinema and consumers. As an operator, the cinema's refusal to allow refunds or changes violated legal regulations, and the penalty imposed on it was appropriate, with the correct target of punishment.
When consumers purchase movie tickets online, a service transaction relationship is formed between them. The Consumer Rights Protection Law does not exclude the provision of services from its scope of protection. In this case, the cinema unilaterally set standard-form contract terms for ticket refunds and changes, disabling the refund and change procedures. Viewers were forced to agree to the clause that "tickets cannot be refunded or changed after purchase" before they could continue to buy movie tickets on the online platform. This conduct constituted the use of standard-form clauses combined with technical means to compel transactions, thereby restricting and excluding viewers' legitimate rights to refund or change tickets within a reasonable time, increasing consumer responsibilities and reducing the operator's responsibilities. This violated the provisions of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law and is deemed an invalid clause.
Therefore, the cinema's refusal to allow Mr. Wang and other consumers to refund or change movie tickets was illegal. The court determined that the administrative decisions made by the Market Supervision Administration and the district government complied with legal provisions. Ultimately, the Huaiyin District Court legally ruled to dismiss the cinema's lawsuit. The cinema appealed, and the Jinan Intermediate People's Court legally ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Article 496
A standard-form clause is a clause that is prepared in advance by a party for repeated use and is not negotiated with the other party at the time of concluding the contract.
When a contract is concluded using standard-form clauses, the party providing the standard-form clauses shall determine the rights and obligations between the parties in accordance with the principle of fairness and shall take reasonable measures to draw the other party's attention to clauses that exempt or reduce the provider's liability or involve other significant interests of the other party, and shall explain such clauses upon the other party's request. If the party providing the standard-form clauses fails to fulfill the obligation to draw attention or provide explanation, causing the other party to fail to notice or understand clauses that significantly affect its interests, the other party may assert that such clauses are not part of the contract.
Article 497
A standard clause shall be void under any of the following circumstances:
(1) It falls under the invalid circumstances specified in Section 3 of Chapter 6 of Part One of this Code and Article 506 of this Code;
(2) The party providing the standard clause unreasonably exempts or reduces its own liability, increases the other party's liability, or restricts the other party's main rights;
(3) The party providing the standard clause excludes the other party's main rights.
[1] The author's perspective
In daily life, similar unfair clauses are actually quite common. Consumers often choose to silently accept them to avoid trouble due to the small amount of consumption, but this "swallowing one's pride" actually encourages the arrogance of businesses.
In this case, the court's final judgment not only warns businesses not to bully customers based on their size, but also points a clear path for consumers who have suffered in silence. Once encountering such unequal and unfair clauses, one must not tolerate them but instead take up the weapon of the law to defend their rights.
The market regulatory authority transferred the leads on the online platform's violations to the platform's local regulatory authority and, following legal procedures, issued an administrative penalty decision against the cinema, ordering it to immediately correct the illegal behavior and imposing a fine of 6,000 RMB.
After the cinema applied for administrative reconsideration, the district government upheld the market regulatory authority's penalty decision. The cinema argued that the content displayed on the ticketing webpage was edited by the third-party online sales channel and was unrelated to it, claiming the administrative decision lacked factual and legal basis. It then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Huaiyin District Court, seeking to revoke the penalty and reconsideration decisions made by the district government and the market regulatory authority.
[1] Court Opinion
The Huaiyin District Court found through trial that the cinema's ticket sales agreement with the online platform stipulated that the cinema authorized the platform to sell tickets and collect revenue, with no refunds or changes allowed for tickets sold on the platform, and the cinema bore responsibility for product quality and service issues arising during the period.
Based on this, the court held that, according to Article 3 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the market regulatory authority correctly identified a buyer-seller relationship between the cinema and consumers. As an operator, the cinema's refusal to allow refunds or changes violated legal regulations, and the penalty imposed on it was appropriate, with the correct target of punishment.
When consumers purchase movie tickets online, a service transaction relationship is formed between them. The Consumer Rights Protection Law does not exclude the provision of services from its scope of protection. In this case, the cinema unilaterally set standard-form contract terms for ticket refunds and changes, disabling the refund and change procedures. Viewers were forced to agree to the clause that "tickets cannot be refunded or changed after purchase" before they could continue to buy movie tickets on the online platform. This conduct constituted the use of standard-form clauses combined with technical means to compel transactions, thereby restricting and excluding viewers' legitimate rights to refund or change tickets within a reasonable time, increasing consumer responsibilities and reducing the operator's responsibilities. This violated the provisions of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law and is deemed an invalid clause.
Therefore, the cinema's refusal to allow Mr. Wang and other consumers to refund or change movie tickets was illegal. The court determined that the administrative decisions made by the Market Supervision Administration and the district government complied with legal provisions. Ultimately, the Huaiyin District Court legally ruled to dismiss the cinema's lawsuit. The cinema appealed, and the Jinan Intermediate People's Court legally ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Article 496
A standard-form clause is a clause that is prepared in advance by a party for repeated use and is not negotiated with the other party at the time of concluding the contract.
When a contract is concluded using standard-form clauses, the party providing the standard-form clauses shall determine the rights and obligations between the parties in accordance with the principle of fairness and shall take reasonable measures to draw the other party's attention to clauses that exempt or reduce the provider's liability or involve other significant interests of the other party, and shall explain such clauses upon the other party's request. If the party providing the standard-form clauses fails to fulfill the obligation to draw attention or provide explanation, causing the other party to fail to notice or understand clauses that significantly affect its interests, the other party may assert that such clauses are not part of the contract.
Article 497
A standard clause shall be void under any of the following circumstances:
(1) It falls under the invalid circumstances specified in Section 3 of Chapter 6 of Part One of this Code and Article 506 of this Code;
(2) The party providing the standard clause unreasonably exempts or reduces its own liability, increases the other party's liability, or restricts the other party's main rights;
(3) The party providing the standard clause excludes the other party's main rights.
[1] The author's perspective
In daily life, similar unfair clauses are actually quite common. Consumers often choose to silently accept them to avoid trouble due to the small amount of consumption, but this "swallowing one's pride" actually encourages the arrogance of businesses.
In this case, the court's final judgment not only warns businesses not to bully customers based on their size, but also points a clear path for consumers who have suffered in silence. Once encountering such unequal and unfair clauses, one must not tolerate them but instead take up the weapon of the law to defend their rights.
