Consumers Face Difficulties with Movie Ticket Refunds and Changes After Purchase; Experts Believe: Cinemas Should Cooperate with Refunds and Changes When Reasonable Circumstances Prevent Viewing

Reprinted from: Legal Daily

Movie plans suddenly change, but online purchased tickets face “no refunds or exchanges”; tickets canceled days in advance incur high fees, and different platforms have vastly different rules for refunds and changes at the same theater; special screenings and discounted tickets are subject to unreasonable restrictions, with platforms and theaters passing the buck, leaving consumers’ rights protection in deadlock…

Recently, some consumers reported to the Legal Daily that they encountered difficulties in refunding or changing tickets purchased on certain platforms. Our investigation found that the current ticket refund and change policies not only lack clear public disclosure and have inconsistent fee standards, but also that shifting responsibilities between platforms and theaters significantly increase consumers’ rights protection costs.

Differences in Refund and Change Policies

“The theater agreed to a refund, but the platform kept passing the buck. It took three days to get the money back.” Ms. Chen from Guiyang, Guizhou Province, shared her experience with a ticketing platform, calling it “frustrating.” On February 23rd around 7 p.m., Ms. Chen ordered a ticket for the noon screening of “The Bodyguard: Wind Rising in the Desert,” paying 95.79 yuan. Two hours later, due to a change in her schedule, she had to cancel her plan to watch the movie.

She first contacted the theater directly, which clearly agreed to a refund, requiring only her to notify the platform to complete the process. However, when she requested a refund from the ticketing platform, she was met with evasion. The online customer service agent promised to contact her soon, but after 24 hours, no contact was made, and the screening had already ended. Ms. Chen contacted customer service again, who refused to process the refund with statements like “the film has already been shown, so no refund is supported” and “the platform does not intervene in on-site theater handling.” When she called the platform’s official customer service, staff simply said “unable to resolve” and offered only a 30-yuan compensation.

After multiple failed communications, Ms. Chen filed a consumer complaint with a third-party platform on February 26, clearly pointing out that the platform used standard clauses to exclude consumer rights, violating relevant consumer protection laws. On the afternoon of February 27, the platform changed its stance, transferring the full amount of 95.79 yuan into Ms. Chen’s platform wallet under the guise of a “sincere compensation red envelope.”

However, she noticed that the original ticket order still showed as “completed,” with no refund processed—an apparent move by the platform to evade after-sales accountability and responsibility.

Similarly, Ms. Song from Zhangjiakou, Hebei Province, engaged in a tug-of-war with a ticketing platform over high refund fees. On February 9, she ordered a ticket for the February 17th screening of “Flying Past: The Third” at 4 p.m., costing 39.8 yuan, with eight days remaining before the show. She later decided to cancel and change the screening, but the system showed a 16-yuan fee—about 40% of the ticket price. After negotiations, customer service told her she could apply for a refund, with the fee returned to her platform account.

Ms. Chen’s and Ms. Song’s experiences are not isolated. Our random review of refund and change policies at ten Beijing cinemas revealed differences, with two theaters explicitly stating no support for refunds (no “refund” label on their pages).

To experience the refund and change process, on March 8th around noon, the reporter purchased a ticket for a Beijing theater (one of the theaters that does not support refunds) at 3 p.m. on March 9th, costing 68.8 yuan, with a clear “no refund” notice prominently displayed.

After purchasing, the reporter applied for a refund citing “personal schedule changes.” Customer service said they needed to communicate with the theater, then reported that “the theater does not agree to a refund, so it cannot be processed.” The reporter called the theater directly, and staff confirmed that as long as the platform agreed to a refund, the theater would cooperate immediately—no rejection was involved.

After nearly two hours of “passing the buck,” and multiple submissions of communication records, the platform finally agreed to process the refund.

Restrictions on Refunds and Changes for Special Screenings

“Tickets for the roadshow screening said no refunds, but the theater said yes. It took half a day to sort it out, feeling like I was being fooled,” said Ms. Li from Shenzhen, Guangdong. On February 16th, she bought three tickets for a roadshow screening at around 8 p.m. that night, each costing about 700 yuan, totaling roughly 2,100 yuan, on a certain platform.

Less than an hour after purchase, her friend, due to a last-minute work call, couldn’t attend. Ms. Li tried to cancel, but found no self-service refund option—only customer service. The response was: “This is a special roadshow screening, and the platform does not support refunds or exchanges.” After raising objections, customer service further explained that this was a theater requirement, and after communication, the theater explicitly refused a refund.

With four days remaining before the screening, Ms. Li refused to accept the loss. She called the theater, and the duty manager’s reply was completely different: the theater fully supported a refund, but the money was still in the platform’s account, and only after the platform’s staff coordinated with the theater could the seats be released and the refund processed.

Upon learning this, Ms. Li immediately contacted the platform’s online customer service again, but was told “the theater staff do not agree to a refund.” To verify, she called the theater’s duty manager and recorded the call, who again confirmed the theater always supported refunds. Ms. Li then realized that the platform’s claims of “disagreement among staff” and “trying to negotiate” were just tactics to refuse refunds.

After pointing out the conflicting information, the customer service attitude softened, promising to assist with negotiations, but then delayed citing “too many refund requests that night and inability to contact relevant personnel.” Only after calling again the next day did her three tickets finally get refunded.

“It’s not that the platform can’t refund, it just doesn’t want to,” Ms. Li said.

Restrictions on refunds and changes for special screenings make consumer rights protection difficult, and some discounted tickets on e-commerce platforms also hide consumer traps.

On February 20th, Ms. Zhang from Yuncheng, Shanxi, encountered a consumer dispute over discounted tickets. She bought two tickets for a certain theater’s screening at about 3 hours later, each costing 39 yuan, from a shop called “XX Discount Tickets” on a certain e-commerce platform. At the same time, her cousin bought two tickets for the same show and seats through a legitimate platform.

After discovering the issue, Ms. Zhang immediately requested a refund. The seller refused, citing “no refunds or exchanges for discounted tickets,” “no seat guarantees,” and “if seats are occupied, they will be automatically changed without notice.” After multiple failed negotiations, Ms. Zhang had her cousin process the refund on the official platform, incurring a 12-yuan fee.

Joint Responsibilities of Platforms and Theaters

Are rules that prohibit refunds or impose high fees on refunds reasonable? How should consumers’ legitimate rights be protected amid various barriers set by platforms and theaters?

Wu Di, associate professor at Shenyang Normal University School of Law, believes that when consumers purchase tickets and a film screening service contract is formed, if the film has not yet been shown and the consumer has not actually enjoyed the service, then a reasonable change or termination of the contract due to legitimate reasons is justified. The operator’s refusal based on “ticket validity” or “preventing malicious refunds” essentially exempts responsibility unilaterally and excludes core consumer rights, violating relevant provisions of the Civil Code and Consumer Rights Protection Law.

“According to the Civil Code, the party providing standard terms should follow the principle of fairness in determining rights and obligations and reasonably alert the other party to clauses that exempt or reduce liability, especially those with significant interests. In practice, some platforms and theaters neither clearly notify consumers nor properly set absolute ‘no refund’ clauses, which clearly breaches fairness and legal notification obligations,” Wu Di said.

He also pointed out that for high refund fees, if the fee significantly exceeds the operator’s actual loss, it constitutes an improper restriction of consumer rights and a disguised transfer of business risks, which is also unfair and invalid under law.

The China Film Distribution and Screening Association issued a notice in September 2018 requiring theaters to prominently display “refund and change” policies in the lobby and to present “refund and change” agreements before payment online, only allowing payment after the viewer clicks “agree.” However, in practice, enforcement has often been lax.

Wu Di analyzed that this is due to the low industry standardization and weak enforcement, leading to “requirements without accountability,” making it difficult to effectively constrain operators.

To address issues such as no refunds, excessive fees, unclear disclosures, Wu Di suggests upgrading industry self-discipline to mandatory regulations, clarifying refund and change rights, fee caps, and disclosure obligations. Relevant authorities should strengthen law enforcement, credit sanctions, and public exposure of violations. Only with clear rules, effective supervision, and joint responsibility from platforms and theaters can consumer rights be truly protected, balancing interests and promoting healthy long-term development of the film industry.