记者 张熠 继3日上海市民艺术夜校秋季班报名火爆后，昨天12时，首次推出的上海市民日校启动报名。短短1 分钟内，27门课程被一抢而空，瞬时在线抢课人数达16.36万。最受欢迎的壁球课程仅4秒就被抢光。 "日校参与人次和抢课的火爆程度，超出预期。半小时内成功报名2815人，占计划招生数的 46%。"上海市群众艺术馆馆长吴鹏宏分析，这一热度虽然无法和3日夜校春季班117万人的抢课纪录媲 美，但从课程秒光速度与报名的年龄段覆盖面看，"广大市民对日校培训存在迫切需求，市民日校大有 可为"。 据市群艺馆统计，日校学员中，"80后"占比最高，为33.53%；其次是占比32.72%的"70后"；相较之 下，夜校学员中"90后"占比最高，为42.83%。而在课程类型上，夜校学员青睐体育课程，如壁球、成人 射箭、普拉提等，其次是爵士鼓、古琴、钢琴等音乐类课程，以及陪诊师入门考证积分班、人工智能训 练师考证积分班等职场类课程。运动健康、品质生活以及职业技能类课程也同样受到日校学员的欢迎。 日校和夜校通过时间上的互补，空间上的错峰，共同为广大市民构建全天候服务闭环。从创立以 来，夜校、日校始终坚持500元/12次课的公益定价，这背 ...

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]