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 that evening at a certain cinema through an online platform. After the tickets were issued, he discovered that he had mistakenly selected the following evening. Since the ticketing platform had no refund process in place, Mr. Wang immediately contacted the platform’s customer service to request a rescheduling, but was told to contact the cinema instead. Unexpectedly, the cinema took a firm stance and refused the refund or rescheduling on the grounds that Mr. Wang had checked and agreed to a “no refunds, no changes” agreement before purchasing the tickets. Angered, Mr. Wang filed a complaint with the market supervision bureau.
Mr. Wang ordered two movie tickets for that evening at a certain cinema through an online platform. After the tickets were issued, he discovered that he had mistakenly selected the following evening. Since the ticketing platform had no refund process in place, Mr. Wang immediately contacted the platform’s customer service to request a rescheduling, but was told to contact the cinema instead. Unexpectedly, the cinema took a firm stance and refused the refund or rescheduling on the grounds that Mr. Wang had checked and agreed to a “no refunds, no changes” agreement before purchasing the tickets. Angered, Mr. Wang filed a complaint with the market supervision bureau.
[1] Image source from the internet; if infringement occurs, please delete!
After investigation and verification, the Market Supervision Bureau found that the cinema, by entering into cooperation agreements with third-party online ticketing platforms, disabled the refund and rescheduling procedures on those platforms. Viewers were forced to agree to the standard-form contract clause stating that "tickets cannot be refunded or rescheduled after purchase" before they could continue to purchase the company's movie tickets on the third-party online ticketing platforms. There have recently been multiple incidents in which viewers filed complaints demanding refunds or rescheduling, yet the cinema refused all refunds and maintained its position of no refunds and no rescheduling.
The Market Supervision Bureau transferred the illegal clues involving the online platform to the market supervision bureau in the location of the platform, and made an administrative penalty decision against the cinema in accordance with statutory procedures, ordering the party concerned to immediately correct the illegal acts and imposing a fine of RMB 6,000.
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 sales relationship is formed between the parties, and the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests does not exclude the provision of services from its scope of protection. In this case, the cinema unilaterally set standard-form contract terms for refunds and rescheduling and disabled the refund and rescheduling procedures, forcing viewers to agree to its term that “tickets cannot be refunded or rescheduled after purchase” before they could continue to purchase movie tickets on the online platform. Such conduct constitutes using standard-form terms and technical means to force transactions, thereby restricting and excluding viewers’ lawful rights and interests to refund or reschedule tickets within a reasonable time, increasing consumer liability and reducing operator liability. It violates the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and constitutes an invalid term.
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 everyday life, such unfair terms are actually quite common. Consumers often choose to silently accept them because the amounts involved are relatively small and they wish to avoid trouble. However, this kind of “swallowing one’s grievances” actually fuels 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 Supervision Bureau transferred the illegal clues involving the online platform to the market supervision bureau in the location of the platform, and made an administrative penalty decision against the cinema in accordance with statutory procedures, ordering the party concerned to immediately correct the illegal acts and imposing a fine of RMB 6,000.
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 sales relationship is formed between the parties, and the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests does not exclude the provision of services from its scope of protection. In this case, the cinema unilaterally set standard-form contract terms for refunds and rescheduling and disabled the refund and rescheduling procedures, forcing viewers to agree to its term that “tickets cannot be refunded or rescheduled after purchase” before they could continue to purchase movie tickets on the online platform. Such conduct constitutes using standard-form terms and technical means to force transactions, thereby restricting and excluding viewers’ lawful rights and interests to refund or reschedule tickets within a reasonable time, increasing consumer liability and reducing operator liability. It violates the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and constitutes an invalid term.
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 everyday life, such unfair terms are actually quite common. Consumers often choose to silently accept them because the amounts involved are relatively small and they wish to avoid trouble. However, this kind of “swallowing one’s grievances” actually fuels 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.
