"Frictionless Auto-Renewal" and "Limited-Time No Refunds"? Legal Boundaries Are Here

Currently, the booming digital economy has made online consumption one of the main ways for the public to spend. How do courts rule on “feelingless renewal” issues on video platforms? As living standards continue to improve, the public is increasingly willing to pay for “peace of mind” or “emotional value,” and modes like online booking are becoming more common in practice. If problems such as “non-refundable within a limited time” after successful booking occur, how can consumers protect their legal rights?

On March 15, the Supreme People’s Court released six typical cases of consumer rights protection. Noticing that these cases focus on prominent issues in emerging fields, regulate online platform operations, effectively safeguard consumers’ legal rights, and guide operators to act honestly and lawfully.

In one case, on August 23, 2021, Xiao Xie purchased a membership service on a video platform via an app, selecting the “annual continuous subscription” option. The service agreement stipulated automatic renewal and specified that if errors occurred during the deduction process, the responsible party should bear the liability based on the cause of the error.

On August 10, 2022, the involved video company sent Xiao Xie a reminder about automatic renewal within the platform but did not set an automatic pop-up alert, and the path to view the information was unclear. On the same day, the company also sent an SMS reminder about automatic renewal to Xiao Xie’s phone, but the message failed to deliver. Afterwards, the company did not remind Xiao Xie again.

On August 20, 2022, after Xiao Xie’s account was automatically charged, his request for a refund was refused. Xiao Xie filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order the company to refund and compensate for interest lost during the funds’ occupation. During litigation, the company voluntarily refunded the deducted amount but refused to compensate for interest loss.

The court held that the video company, as a business operator, failed to fully protect the consumer’s right to be informed and to choose freely regarding renewal. Ultimately, the court ruled that the company should compensate for the interest lost during the period Xiao Xie’s funds were occupied.

In recent years, as living standards improve, the tourism market remains hot, and online booking of accommodations has become the norm. Drafting “limited-time cancellation” clauses is a measure for operators to increase order success rates and reduce business risks, but it also leads to disputes. Can consumers who cancel beyond the “limited time” request a refund? How should the refund amount be determined?

Xiao Lu booked a three-day, two-night stay at a guesthouse through an online travel platform, 14 days in advance during the “Golden Week” holiday, paying the full amount of 1,281 yuan. The booking page indicated “Cancellation not allowed after 30 minutes of successful booking; full prepayment required for cancellation.” Xiao Lu, unable to purchase a train ticket to the destination, applied for cancellation and a full refund two hours after the booking was successful. The guesthouse refused to refund, citing that Xiao Lu’s cancellation exceeded the “limited time.” Xiao Lu sued, requesting the court to order the guesthouse to refund 1,281 yuan.

The court held that although the clause “cannot cancel after 30 minutes of successful booking, full prepayment required for cancellation” was highlighted on the order page, in this case, Xiao Lu applied for cancellation two hours after the booking, with 14 days remaining before check-in. The guesthouse had sufficient reasonable time and market conditions to resell the room. Enforcing the clause as written would unfairly increase the consumer’s burden and violate fairness principles. The case should be based on the actual loss suffered by the guesthouse, considering contract performance, whether the cancellation affected secondary sales, and the fault of the parties. The court ultimately ordered the guesthouse to refund 1,000 yuan to Xiao Lu.

In this case, the court comprehensively considered the clause content, the guesthouse’s actual loss, and whether the cancellation affected secondary sales to reasonably determine the refund amount. This approach helps balance consumer and operator interests and promotes the further improvement of the booking consumption model.