Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court's interpretation on prepayment consumption disputes aims to address issues such as fund misappropriation, "unfair clauses," and refund difficulties, which remain prevalent despite the new regulations [1][2] - The interpretation consists of 27 articles that clarify the scope of application, responsibility identification, contract interpretation, refund obligations, and evidence provision responsibilities for operators, enhancing consumer protection while balancing the interests of businesses [2][26] - The interpretation allows consumers to claim punitive damages if operators abscond with funds and invalidates unfair clauses that restrict refund rights, thus facilitating a more equitable consumption environment [2][26] Group 2 - A case study involving a consumer named Ms. He highlights ongoing challenges in obtaining refunds, as she was denied a refund for a dance course she never attended, illustrating the difficulties consumers face in exercising their rights [3][4][20] - Despite the new regulations, many businesses continue to impose high fees for refunds or transfers, with some charging up to 30% of the total fee, indicating that the implementation of the new rules has not significantly changed business practices [21][25] - Legal experts emphasize that consumers have the right to reject unfair terms and can seek legal recourse if businesses fail to comply with refund requests, reinforcing the importance of consumer awareness and vigilance in prepayment transactions [26][27]