The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Prepaid Consumption (Draft for Soliciting Opinions) was released on the 6th to solicit opinions from the public. Prepaid consumption refers to the transaction method in which operators repeatedly or continuously redeem goods or provide services to consumers after receiving prepayments in the fields of retail, accommodation, catering, fitness, travel, hairdressing, beauty, education and training and other daily consumption. It is understood that there are overbearing clauses in the prepaid consumption field, such as non refundable payments, expired and invalid payments, restrictions on card transfers, and no refunds for lost cards, which seriously infringe on consumer rights. According to the draft for soliciting opinions, consumers may claim that the following standard terms are invalid: excluding the right of consumers to terminate the contract in accordance with the law or request the return of advance payment; Unreasonably restricting consumers from transferring their rights to prepaid consumption contracts; Agree that consumers who lose their registered prepaid cards will not apply for replacement; The operator has the right to unilaterally modify the substantive content of the contract, such as the price, type, quality, quantity, etc. of the goods or services to be redeemed or provided; Exempt operators from liability for defects in the goods or services they redeem or for compensation for losses incurred by consumers; Excluding the jurisdiction of the court where the consumer resides would unreasonably increase the cost of consumer rights protection. The draft for soliciting opinions clearly states that after the establishment of a prepaid consumer contract, the basic conditions of the prepaid consumer contract, such as consumer health, undergo significant changes that the parties could not have foreseen at the time of signing the contract and were not considered commercial risks. If continuing to perform the contract is obviously unfair to consumers, consumers can renegotiate with the operator; If the negotiation fails within a reasonable period of time and the consumer requests the people's court to modify or terminate the prepaid consumption contract, the people's court shall support it. According to the draft for soliciting opinions, if a business operator engages in the following fraudulent behaviors, consumers may request the business operator to pay punitive damages: fabricating or exaggerating the quality and function of the promoted goods, the content and efficacy of the services, and misleading consumers to engage in prepaid consumption; Mislead consumers into making prepaid purchases through false discounts, reductions, price comparisons, and other means; After receiving the advance payment, terminate the operation, neither redeem the goods or provide services as agreed, nor maliciously evade consumer refund applications; Concealing the fact that the plan is terminated or unable to operate normally, and inducing consumers to pay advance payments. In response to the frequent practice of operators running away with money, the draft for soliciting opinions stipulates that if operators face operational difficulties and are unable to redeem goods or provide services as agreed in the contract, they should promptly notify consumers to handle matters such as refunding advance payments; If a third party helps a business operator evade debts and causes losses to consumers, they should bear joint and several liability with the business operator. (Lai Xin She)