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]