China Central Broadcasting Network, Beijing, June 21 (Correspondent Zhou Yifan and Yang Songtao) According to the China Voice of China's "News Zongheng" report, in May 2023, many viewers complained, spending several hundred yuan or even more. A ticket for a star's Shanghai concert purchased for 1,000 yuan, but during the actual performance, the view of the venue was blocked and the sound effects were poor. The audience's experience of the concert was "only heard but not seen", which greatly reduced the audience's experience. In the subsequent communication, because they were dissatisfied with the mediation plan given by the organizer, nine consumers including Li sued the organizer to the People's Court of Minhang District, Shanghai, advocating "refund one and compensate three".
In November 2023, the first instance of the Meilong People's Court of the Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai held a public hearing on the case. Yesterday (June 20) morning, the Minhang District People's Court publicly announced its verdict in the first instance, ruling that the defendant should refund the plaintiff's ticket price based on a stepped refund ratio of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan per ticket. What is the attitude of all parties regarding the verdict? How much enlightenment can this case bring to consumer disputes in the concert industry?
Yesterday (June 20) morning, the first instance verdict was announced in the concert "pillar ticket" case. The Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai, based on the pleadings and arguments of both parties and the evidence in the case, held after trial that the defendant's behavior did not constitute fraud, but it was defective performance and constituted a breach of contract. The court ordered the defendant to refund the plaintiff's ticket price in a stepped refund ratio based on the single fare of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan.
The first-instance verdict was pronounced on the concert "Pillar Ticket" case (Photo source: Shanghai Minhang Court)
The court stated that the dispute over whether the defendant's failure to promptly inform the plaintiff of defects in performance constituted fraud. Fraud refers to intentionally informing false information or being liable to inform. The obligated party deliberately conceals the true situation, causing the party to make a wrong expression of intention based on a wrong understanding. In this case, from the perspective of the plaintiff's evidence, it is difficult to meet the above standard of proof. The existing evidence is not enough to eliminate all reasonable doubts and to determine that the defendant committed fraud. Regarding the dispute over whether the defendant constituted a breach of contract and what kind of liability it bears, the court held that the plaintiff’s viewing line of sight was obviously blocked by the load-bearing pillars. The obstruction was obviously beyond the plaintiff’s foreseeable range, resulting in a viewing experience that did not meet the general psychology of ordinary viewers. expected.
Due to individual differences and the subjective feelings of each audience, the impact of "pillar votes" cannot be accurately judged. However, the court held that what is certain is that compared to those with outside tickets, those with in-field tickets have higher expectations for the concert, especially the viewing experience, and have a lower obligation to tolerate defective performance. Zhang Yuxia, the attorney for the plaintiff, said in an interview with China Voice yesterday that based on the plaintiff’s ticket price of 699 yuan, 999 yuan, and 1,299 yuan, the refund ratios reached approximately 60%, 65%, and 70% respectively.
Zhang Yuxia said: "Laddered plans have also appeared in litigation. Under the organization of the judge, according to the stepped plan, the refund amount from 30%, 40%, 50% of the highest ticket price is a mediation plan up to 50%. But from the perspective of consumers, what they want more is a statement that the other party has never recognized that they were defective or at fault in the entire concert hosting process. The court believed that the other party's behavior constituted a breach of contract, but it did not. It constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. Because after all, you participated in this concert, and it was an audio-visual effect, not just for viewing but also for listening, but the performance of the contract was defective, so you need to bear certain liability for breach of contract. "
Some netizens said. Said that the singer could hardly be seen throughout the whole process (photo provided by the interviewee issued by CCTV)
In April 2023, the plaintiff Li and nine other people purchased tickets for a certain singer’s Shanghai concert through a third-party sales platform. A month later, at the concerts on May 20 and 21, many consumers found that their view was blocked to varying degrees by the stage load-bearing pillars after entering the venue, seriously affecting the viewing experience.
Consumer Jiang Tao (pseudonym) said: "It is a four-sided platform with four pillars on all sides. The radiating angles from the four corners are all affected."
Hundreds of spectators joined the rights protection group, hoping that the organizers Able to provide reasonable solutions.Under the mediation of the Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Department, the organizer Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Cultural Performing Arts Co., Ltd. offered a compensation plan of 200 yuan, but consumers were not satisfied.
In 2023, the Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission issued a project document to support litigation (picture provided by the respondent issued by CCTV)
Since then, 9 consumers sued Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Culture Performing Arts Co., Ltd. to court. The Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission issued a letter of support for the lawsuit in this case. In November 2023, the first instance of the case was held. The two parties conducted court investigations and debates around controversial issues such as "whether the organizer should inform in advance of the existence of "pillar tickets" and whether these locations will affect the concert experience."
The plaintiff believes that the defendant did not inform in advance that the seats it sold had serious defects that blocked the line of sight, which defrauded consumers and violated consumers' right to choose and know, and made three claims.
Consumer Li Xiaoxiao (pseudonym) said: "I request the defendant to return the plaintiff's concert ticket price, order the defendant to pay punitive damages to the plaintiff, and order the defendant to bear the litigation costs of this case."
During the trial, the defendant argued It said that it disagreed with all the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff's evidence did not prove that his sight was blocked so seriously that it affected his enjoyment of the performance. The plaintiff neither raised any objection at the scene nor left the show midway, but had chosen to watch the performance in its entirety and enjoy it. If all performance services are provided, then the contract involved in the case has been fulfilled.
Regarding the outcome of the first-instance judgment, Li Xiaoxiao, a consumer who participated in the lawsuit, believes that compared with the previous 200-yuan donation plan proposed by the organizer, everyone believes that it is a big step forward.
Li Xiaoxiao said: "From the perspective of time cost or from the perspective of our rights protection, this process also took more than a year. In fact, we did not really put 'refund one for three' in the position we expected, but We all feel that the cost of infringing consumers is too low, at least the organizers need to pay attention to it.” Zhang Yuxia, the attorney for the
plaintiff, believes that although the judgment has not yet officially come into effect, this judgment has guiding significance for the resolution of similar consumer disputes. ―After the dispute at this concert, many subsequent concerts provided instructions on seats with obstructed views when selling tickets.
Zhang Yuxia said: "It is not yet certain whether the first-instance judgment will finally take effect. It is still within the appeal period, but I think the entire lawsuit itself is very meaningful. Because there was a letter from the (Shanghai) Municipal Consumer Protection Committee before, I hope to use individual cases to determine the identification of these behaviors in this type of similar cases - whether they constitute a breach of contract and whether such behavior without prior notification will be determined as fraud. I hope that through such cases, these facts can be identified . If certain industry guidelines can be formed, we will be more likely to resolve these disputes and conflicts at an early stage."
The defendant, Shanghai Magic Cube Pan-Culture Performing Arts Co., Ltd., said that considering that the case may become a reference for industry standards, It has not yet been decided whether to appeal.
The Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Commission stated that in addition to disputes over concert "pillar tickets", throughout 2023, the Consumer Protection Commission received more than 10,000 complaints surrounding concert consumption. Tang Jiansheng, deputy secretary-general of the Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission, believes that finding a balance between consumers and organizers through litigation, and then forming guidelines for resolving consumer disputes in the field of concerts, is the key to resolving disputes in the future.
Tang Jiansheng said: "The number of consumer complaints about concerts and related consumer disputes has also increased sharply, especially issues such as pillar tickets, audio tickets, and high refund fees after the concert's real-name system. In the case of concerts, In this emerging consumption, many rules are missing. In this case, the balance between the interests of consumers and operators cannot be found, and we need more specific rules.Therefore, the Shanghai Consumer Protection Commission has supported lawsuits in many typical cases related to concerts. We will entrust our public interest lawyers. The demands are based on consumers’ own demands, but we hope that through the court’s judgment, we can bring benefits to the market. After finding a rule, our Shanghai Consumer Protection Committee will also prepare to launch guidelines for resolving consumer disputes in the field of concerts this year based on relevant judgment documents and the views of industry and legal experts. We hope that these guidelines can protect the public first. Consumer rights, secondly, if the balance point between operators and consumers in this field can be written out, I think there will be much fewer related consumer disputes, and the entire industry will develop in a more healthy and standardized way. "
