Nowadays, gyms, beauty salons, education and training and other industries generally adopt the prepaid consumption model. Merchants use "buy more, get more, get more" and "limited time offers" to attract consumers to recharge large amounts at one time.
Ms. Jiang bought a personal training class at a fitness center. However, the class was not completed and the personal trainer resigned. Ms. Jiang wanted to cancel the class and refund the fees for the class that she had not attended. However, she failed to negotiate with the fitness center and sued the court. When personal trainers leave their jobs and consumers withdraw from classes, who breaks the contract? Should fitness centers give full refunds for classes not taken? The Pinggu District People's Court of Beijing disclosed that Ms. Jiang won the case in the final instance.
On November 16, 2024, Ms. Jiang purchased fitness personal training courses worth 5,000 yuan from the defendant’s fitness center, including 8 rehabilitation personal training courses at 250 yuan each, and 15 regular personal training courses at 200 yuan each, for a total of 23 classes.
Wang Qiaoyu, Assistant Judge of the People's Court of Pinggu District, Beijing: Coach Wang is in charge of his rehabilitation private training classes, and Coach Li is in charge of his regular private training classes. However, Ms. Jiang was injured during the first regular class, so Ms. Jiang agreed with the fitness center that Coach Wang would be in charge of all her personal training classes.
As of December 28, 2024, Ms. Jiang had taken a total of 7 classes, including 6 rehabilitation classes and 1 regular class. The remaining 16 classes had not been taken, and the corresponding course fee was 3,300 yuan.
Wang Qiaoyu: In February 2025, Coach Wang suddenly resigned from the fitness center and could no longer provide services to Ms. Jiang, so Ms. Jiang applied for a refund from the fitness center.
The manager of the fitness center did not deny that the remaining course fee was about 3,300 yuan, but he proposed that 20% liquidated damages and coach commission fees would be deducted for refunds. In total, only 1,840 yuan could be refunded; if the class is transferred to another person, 10% commission fee would also be deducted. Negotiations between the two parties failed. Ms. Jiang believed that the fitness center could not continue to provide personal training services as agreed, so she filed a lawsuit in court and requested a refund of the remaining course fee of 3,300 yuan.
Wang Qiaoyu: The fitness center believes that personal training classes have a validity period, and each class is valid for 7 days. All of Ms. Jiang’s classes have expired, so they do not agree to refund.
After trial, the court held that although Ms. Jiang and the fitness center did not sign a written contract, the two parties had formed a de facto service contract relationship. Judge Shi Leixin of the People's Court of Pinggu District, Beijing, who is solely responsible for hearing the case, said that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the fitness center should refund Ms. Jiang's advance payment for unfinished consumption when the designated coach resigned and was unable to provide services.
Shi Leixin: According to Article 53 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China, operators who provide services in the form of advance payments shall provide them as agreed. If they fail to provide services as agreed, they shall refund the advance payment at the consumer's request.
The judge pointed out that after Ms. Jiang was injured, she had agreed with the fitness center that Coach Wang would serve as her personal trainer for subsequent courses. This agreement was the key to determining whether the contract could continue to be performed.
Shi Leixin: The two parties reached a consensus that a specific coach would be the condition for performance. However, Coach Wang resigned midway through the service, and the fitness center was no longer able to perform the contract as agreed. The personal training service contract is a contract with strong personal attributes, paying more attention to the personal experience of the consumer and the trust foundation of both parties, and is not suitable for mandatory performance. If the designated coach is unable to continue to provide services, Ms. Jiang has the right to choose whether to continue to receive services.
The court did not accept the fitness center’s defense that the course had expired.
Shi Leixin: First of all, the fitness center did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that there was an agreement on the validity period of the course, and what Ms. Jiang purchased was a pay-per-view fitness course, not a time-limited prepaid card for unlimited consumption within a certain period. The fitness center lacked basis for refusing to refund the fee on this reason. In the end, the court ruled that the fitness center should refund Ms. Jiang’s remaining course fee of 3,300 yuan.
The fitness center appealed, and the court of second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The case has come into effect.
Prepaid consumption refers to a model in which consumers pay in advance and enjoy services later. Li Xiaoming, president of the First Civil Trial Division of the People's Court of Pinggu District, Beijing, reminded operators that they must not only make good use of prepaid consumption to attract customers, but also operate in compliance, improve contracts and notification obligations, prevent and control risks, and avoid disputes.
Li Xiaoming: First, make a clear written agreement, reject the overlord clause, and enter into a prepaid consumption agreement with consumers. The recharge amount, validity period, service content, consumption rules, deduction standards, refund conditions, transfer rules and liability for breach of contract must be written clearly. Invalid format clauses such as "no refund once recharged" and "refund of expired balance shall be invalid" shall not be set.
Li Xiaoming: When applying for a card, take the initiative to remind consumers of the validity period, restrictions, and change and cancellation rules. Key contents will be highlighted in bold and red without concealing restrictions. No false promises will be made verbally. Proof that the obligation to inform consumers will be retained.
The judge also reminded operators to strictly abide by limit regulations, control the recharge limit of a single prepaid card as required, not issue prepaid cards that exceed the limit, and regulate marketing and publicity.
Li Xiaoming: Put an end to false propaganda that induces consumption and promotes preferential service hours. The number of projects should not be exaggerated, benefits should not be fabricated, and services should not be promised that cannot be delivered.
Li Xiaoming reminded consumers that when choosing the prepaid consumption model, they should pay attention to rational recharging, act according to their ability, retain evidence, and be prepared for any danger. When purchasing services, be sure to keep written materials such as payment vouchers, transfer records, and consumption contracts. Once a dispute arises, don’t panic and safeguard your rights in accordance with the law.
Li Xiaoming: When a merchant is unable to provide services as agreed and refuses to refund, consumers can negotiate and complain to the administrative department, such as calling the 12315 hotline, or filing a lawsuit in court, to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.
