家长万元课时费险些打水漂 “预付式消费”新规亮剑校外培训乱象

Core Points - The article highlights the challenges faced by consumers in prepayment scenarios, particularly in the education and training sector, where businesses often encourage upfront payments with promises of discounts, leading to difficulties in obtaining refunds when services are not delivered as promised [1][2][3] Group 1: Consumer Experience - A parent named Wu Man paid 17,188 yuan for music lessons but faced issues when the training institution suddenly closed, leaving her with 103 unfinished lessons and a complicated refund process [1][2] - The institution initially promised a refund but later provided various excuses for not returning the money, leading Wu Man to seek legal recourse [2][3] Group 2: Legal Framework - The implementation of the Supreme People's Court's interpretation on prepayment disputes grants consumers the right to terminate contracts when service delivery costs increase significantly due to business relocations [3][4] - The interpretation invalidates the common practice of calculating refunds based on original prices rather than discounted rates, which was a prevalent industry norm [7][8] Group 3: Industry Practices - The article discusses the prevalence of "professional closure" tactics among businesses, where they delay refunds, transfer assets, or disappear, complicating consumer claims [3][10] - The training institution involved in Wu Man's case was found to have a complex corporate structure, making it difficult for consumers to pursue claims against shell companies [7][8] Group 4: Regulatory Implications - The new regulations also hold brand franchisors accountable for consumer losses if they mislead consumers regarding their contractual obligations [8][9] - Shopping malls are required to verify the business licenses and qualifications of operators to prevent unlicensed businesses from collecting consumer prepayments [8][9] Group 5: Future Outlook - The article suggests that the rise of online training institutions has complicated the landscape, with many businesses exploiting consumer urgency to secure upfront payments while failing to deliver promised services [10] - The interpretation aims to encourage businesses to prioritize consumer rights and improve service quality, moving away from risky prepayment models [10]