开业五年多，广西首家仓储式会员制超市——阿尔特麦仓储超市华南城店计划在1月底正式停止营业。 不过，购物卡、会员卡内余额只能消费、不能退款的做法，却引起了争议。律师认为，商家规定是霸王 条款，侵犯了消费者的权益。 广西最大超市本月底正式停业 2020年9月22日，在南宁开业的阿尔特麦超市华南城店，以5万平方米的占地面积，相当于7个标准足球 场大小的规模，成为广西首家会员制仓储超市，也是当时最大的超市。 最近几天，到这家超市来购物的消费者发现，超市已经打出闭店公告称，"本店因经营调整，计划在 2026年1月30日正式停止营业。" 合新闻记者查询发现，其实，这并非是该超市首次宣布停业。 律师认为商家做法属于"霸王条款" 安徽大湖律师事务所律师汪俊表示，超市以公告这类未与消费者协商的公示方式，不合理免除自身法定 退款义务，同时限制消费者对卡内余额的自主处置权，强迫消费者在1月30日前消费，排除了消费者的 退款选择权，权利义务严重不对等。 "商家的做法属于霸王条款。"汪俊认为，经营者单方面制定的逃避法定义务、减免自身责任的不平等格 式合同、通知、声明和店堂告示或者行业惯例等，限制消费者权利，严重侵害消费者利益。消费者在 ...

（来源：荔枝新闻） 转自：荔枝新闻 【#40多节美术课停上机构称过期不退# #合同里过期不退算不算霸王条款#？】此前，南京的张女士花 费近万元在一家美术培训班为侄子购买了60节课，后因侄子学业压力中途停课。当张女士提出退还剩余 40多节课时费时，被机构以合同中的"过期不退"条款拒绝。机构负责人表示课程已过9个月有效期，但 可让孩子继续上完或退还部分费用5000元。目前，秦淮区文旅部门已介入协调。律师指出，对于培训机 构而言，若部分条款存在排除消费者权益的内容，必须加黑加粗提示，否则该条款无效。此外，"课程 期满不予退费"的约定本身显失公平——消费者未享受到对应课时服务，机构却收取全部费用，这不符 合公平原则，所以消费者有权要求退还部分费用。@南京零距离 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses issues related to Apple's Trade In program in China, highlighting consumer complaints about the program's execution and transparency [1][2][8] - A specific case is mentioned where a consumer attempted to trade in an iPhone 14 Pro for a discount of 2900 RMB on a new iPhone 17 Pro Max, but Apple later claimed the device had "external repairs," resulting in a discount of 0 RMB [1][6][12] - The article points out that the definition of "external repairs" in Apple's terms is vague, leading to accusations of violating consumer rights and unfair business practices [8][12][16] Group 2 - Multiple consumers have reported similar experiences, indicating that this issue is not isolated, with many claiming their devices were also denied trade-in value without clear justification [12][13][16] - There are discussions in the comments section suggesting that consumers may have the option to request the return of their devices if they disagree with the trade-in terms, although some users report that their devices were not returned [9][10][12] - The article notes a perception of double standards in Apple's treatment of Chinese consumers compared to those in Western markets, raising concerns about corporate ethics [1][8]

Core Points - The rise of short drama training institutions is accompanied by issues related to refund policies and "unreasonable clauses" in contracts [1] - A recent court case in Beijing ruled against an arbitration clause deemed as an "unreasonable clause," reinforcing consumer rights [1] - The Supreme Court's recent interpretation of laws regarding prepaid consumption disputes aims to clarify rights and protect consumers [1][2] Group 1: Legal Context - The court identified the arbitration clause in a training contract as invalid, which significantly reduces the cost burden on consumers seeking refunds [1] - The new judicial interpretation from the Supreme Court invalidates unreasonable clauses that increase consumer costs, such as non-refund policies and restrictions on service transfers [1] Group 2: Consumer Rights and Responsibilities - Consumers are advised to carefully review contract terms, especially regarding duration, fees, refund conditions, and dispute resolution methods [2] - Consumers have the right to terminate prepaid contracts if disputes arise within the contract period, allowing them to mitigate losses [2] Group 3: Business Practices and Consumer Protection - Some platforms are introducing services that guarantee compensation if a business fails to fulfill its obligations, enhancing consumer confidence [3] - There is a call for stricter penalties against businesses that engage in fraudulent practices, such as taking prepaid funds and failing to provide services [3] - The enforcement of the Supreme Court's interpretation is expected to improve the business environment by discouraging dishonest practices and promoting consumer trust [3]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the deceptive practices in the online training industry, where programs marketed as "free training" often lead to hidden costs and unfulfilled promises of high income and job security [1][2]. Group 1: Deceptive Marketing Practices - Many online courses advertise "zero cost, high income, and job security," but these claims often conceal complex schemes that ultimately result in financial loss for participants [1][2]. - Participants, like a university student named Xiao Cai, are lured by advertisements for "part-time online voice acting" that promise easy earnings without prior experience [3][5][6]. Group 2: Hidden Costs and Contracts - After initial contact, participants are offered "free online training," which primarily focuses on how to monetize voice acting rather than providing substantial training [8]. - The training providers showcase impressive earnings from past students, claiming that participants can earn thousands in just ten days, creating a false sense of security [9][11]. - To access better job opportunities, participants are pressured to enroll in a premium course costing 5,760 yuan, despite initial claims of free training [11][13]. Group 3: Consumer Rights Violations - Participants who wish to withdraw from the courses face high cancellation fees, often leading to financial burdens rather than the promised income [17][19]. - The involved training company, Sichuan Lincheng Feiyao Technology Co., Ltd., has been listed in the business anomaly directory due to its inability to be contacted, indicating potential fraudulent practices [22]. - Consumer rights experts highlight that the contracts used by such training institutions often contain unfair terms that violate consumer protection laws [24]. Group 4: Industry Complaints and Regulatory Actions - The online training sector has seen a surge in complaints, with over 27,884 complaints reported in the past year, primarily concerning false advertising and refusal to refund [25]. - Regulatory bodies are urged to monitor and regulate the "pay after learning" model, which often leads to consumers taking on unnecessary debt [27]. - A recent case involving an AI training company revealed that deceptive marketing tactics, including fabricated success stories and false prize giveaways, were used to entice participants into paying for high-cost courses [30][36]. Group 5: Consequences for Deceptive Practices - The involved AI training company was fined 500,000 yuan for false advertising and was ordered to cease illegal activities [39]. - Authorities emphasize the importance of recognizing that skill acquisition and income generation require time and effort, and there are no shortcuts to easy profits [41].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges consumers face regarding ticket refunds for performances, highlighting the increasing complaints and the legal complexities surrounding the issue [1][2][3] Group 1: Consumer Complaints and Experiences - A significant rise in complaints related to ticket refunds has been reported, with over 90% of concert-related complaints focusing on refund requests [1] - Consumers often encounter rigid refund policies, as illustrated by cases where individuals were denied refunds despite valid reasons such as family emergencies [3][4] - Many consumers express confusion and frustration over the inability to return tickets, especially when the event date is far off and does not impact resale opportunities [5][6] Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Framework - The legal basis for the "no refund" policy on tickets stems from the unique characteristics of performance tickets, which are time-sensitive and scarce, unlike regular consumer goods [2][3] - Current consumer protection laws provide a "cooling-off" period for online purchases, but tickets are often classified under exceptions that do not allow for refunds [2][3] - There is a lack of clear legal guidelines specifically addressing ticket refunds, leading to inconsistent court rulings on similar cases [6][7] Group 3: Industry Practices and Recommendations - The ticketing industry is criticized for its inconsistent refund policies, with some platforms allowing refunds under certain conditions while others outright prohibit them [8][10] - Experts suggest adopting a tiered refund system similar to those in the airline and railway industries, which could provide a fairer approach to ticket refunds [10][11] - Regulatory bodies are urged to establish clearer rules and enhance oversight to protect consumer rights in the ticketing market [12]

Group 1 - The core issue involves Xiaomi's recent practice of requiring car owners of models YU7, SU7, and SU7 Ultra to pay the remaining balance within seven days of being prompted, or risk cancellation of their order and forfeiture of their deposit [2] - This policy has been included in the purchase agreement, leading to speculation that Xiaomi aims to combat scalpers, but it has negatively impacted genuine customers [2] - Some customers reported that Xiaomi's delivery personnel used the pretext of early vehicle release to pressure them into making early payments [2] Group 2 - Affected customers have expressed frustration, with some stating they would rather seek scalpers than comply with what they perceive as unfair terms [2] - An insider revealed that early payment is required in two scenarios: when a vehicle is about to be released and the customer wishes to delay pickup, or when there is a high likelihood that the customer may not pick up the vehicle [2]

Core Viewpoint - Recent controversies surrounding Xiaomi and its founder Lei Jun highlight the dual nature of public attention, which can elevate or damage reputations rapidly [1] Group 1: Financial Controversy - Rumors emerged that Lei Jun transferred $5 billion overseas through Wells Fargo, leading to public scrutiny; however, Xiaomi's PR manager clarified that there was no collaboration with Wells Fargo or its executive [1] - The incident reflects the volatility of public perception and the potential impact on Xiaomi's brand image [1] Group 2: Automotive Payment Issues - Xiaomi has faced backlash for requiring prospective car owners to pay the remaining balance on their vehicles within seven days, or risk cancellation of their orders and forfeiture of deposits [3] - This practice has been compared to the "pre-sale" model in real estate, where buyers assume significant risks, raising concerns about consumer protection [7] - The affected customers primarily include those awaiting the Xiaomi SU7 and SU7 Ultra models, with some being asked to pay up to 573,900 yuan [3] Group 3: Customer Evaluation and Market Strategy - Xiaomi's approach targets specific customers deemed less likely to complete their purchases, based on their responsiveness to financing procedures or expressed disinterest [9] - The company aims to mitigate the impact of "scalpers" hoarding orders, as production capacity constraints lead to long wait times for vehicle delivery [9] Group 4: Legal and Ethical Considerations - The purchase agreement includes a clause allowing Xiaomi to demand early payment, which may be viewed as a "standard clause" under consumer protection laws; however, it raises questions about fairness and consumer rights [12] - Legal experts suggest that this clause could be interpreted as an unfair practice if consumers were not adequately informed about its implications [15] - Xiaomi's previous commitment to allow payment after vehicle inspection contrasts with its current policy, leading to accusations of inconsistency [13]

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi's request for customers to pay the remaining balance before vehicle delivery has raised concerns about consumer rights and industry practices, with implications for customer trust and potential legal challenges [2][10][11]. Group 1: Payment Request Context - Customers of Xiaomi's SU7 and SU7 Ultra models have reported being asked to pay the remaining balance within seven days, even before the vehicles are produced [2][5]. - This request is primarily directed at customers who have previously requested delivery delays or shown reluctance to complete the purchase [5][6]. - Xiaomi's rationale includes concerns that customers may refuse the vehicle after production, which could disrupt the delivery schedule for other customers [8][9]. Group 2: Legal and Industry Standards - Legal experts argue that requiring payment during the production phase deviates from standard automotive sales practices, where payment is typically made upon delivery [10][11]. - The purchase agreement includes clauses that may be considered "unfair terms," allowing Xiaomi to cancel orders if payments are not made promptly, which could disadvantage consumers [15][16]. - Experts suggest that consumers should negotiate for clearer delivery timelines and quality assurances before making payments, as the current practices may not align with consumer protection laws [16][17]. Group 3: Consumer Rights and Recommendations - Consumers are advised to be aware of their rights regarding payment and delivery, especially in light of Xiaomi's practices that may impose undue risks on them [11][15]. - If negotiations with Xiaomi do not yield satisfactory results, consumers can escalate their complaints to regulatory bodies or pursue legal action to protect their interests [16][17].

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi Auto is facing controversy over "unfair contract terms" as customers report being asked to pay the remaining balance for vehicles that have not yet been delivered, with threats of order cancellation and non-refundable deposits if they refuse to comply [1][4]. Group 1: Customer Feedback - Customers have reported issues primarily with the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra and Xiaomi YU7 models, where they were asked to pay the remaining balance while the vehicles were still in production, with delivery timelines extending from 22 to 25 weeks [2]. - Some customers were required to pay the remaining balance up to six months in advance, even when their vehicles were still in the "pending production" stage [2]. Group 2: Previous Incidents - This is not the first time Xiaomi Auto has faced such complaints; similar issues were reported as early as 2024, with customers expressing frustration over the "unfair contract terms" [4]. - The purchase agreement allows Xiaomi Auto to demand payment based on production schedules, and failure to pay on time is considered a fundamental breach of contract, leading to order cancellation and forfeiture of deposits [4]. Group 3: Industry Comparison - Xiaomi Auto is currently experiencing rapid growth, with delivery volumes exceeding 30,000 units by July 2025, highlighting the need for standardized delivery processes [5]. - In contrast to other automakers like Tesla and NIO, which allow customers to pay after vehicle inspection, Xiaomi's policy of requiring payment before inspection is seen as non-standard and raises concerns about its sales practices [5].