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

Movie plans suddenly change, but online purchased tickets face “no refunds or exchanges”; canceling tickets days in advance incurs high fees, and different platforms have vastly different rules for refunds and changes at the same theater; special screenings and discounted tickets are restricted with unreasonable refund and change policies, and platforms and theaters pass the buck, leaving consumers’ rights protection in a deadlock…

Recently, some consumers told Legal Daily reporters that they encountered difficulties with refunds and changes after purchasing movie tickets on certain platforms. Investigations found that the current issues in the ticket refund and change area include unclear rule disclosures, inconsistent fee standards, and shifting responsibilities between platforms and theaters, greatly increasing consumers’ rights protection costs.

Differences in Refund and Change Policies

“The theater agreed to the refund, but the platform kept passing the buck, taking three days to return the money.” Ms. Chen from Guiyang, Guizhou Province, shared her experience with a ticketing platform, calling it “frustrating.” On February 23, around 7 p.m., Ms. Chen ordered a ticket for the noon show of The Bodyguard: Winds Rise 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 offline theater, which clearly agreed to refund, requiring only her to notify the platform to complete the process. However, when she requested a refund from the ticketing platform, she faced evasion. Customer service said they would contact her soon, but after 24 hours, no contact was made, and the movie screening had already ended. Ms. Chen contacted online customer service again, who refused with phrases like “the film has been shown, no refund supported” and “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 attempts to communicate, Ms. Chen filed a consumer complaint through a third-party platform on February 26, clearly pointing out that the platform used standard terms to exclude consumer rights, violating relevant consumer protection laws. On the afternoon of February 27, the platform changed its attitude, transferring the full 95.79 yuan into Ms. Chen’s platform wallet under the guise of a “sincere red envelope.”

However, she found that the original ticket order still showed as “completed,” with no refund processed—an operation to evade after-sales assessment 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, Ms. Song ordered a ticket for the Flying Past screening at 4 p.m. on February 17, costing 39.8 yuan, with eight days remaining before the show. She then 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 and Ms. Song’s experiences are not isolated. Random checks 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, a reporter purchased a ticket for a Beijing theater (one of the theaters that does not support refunds) at around 12 p.m. on March 8, costing 68.8 yuan, with a clear “no refund” label on the prominent part of the page.

Afterward, the reporter applied for a refund citing “personal schedule change.” Customer service said they needed to communicate with the theater, then reported that “the theater does not agree to a refund, cannot process it.” The reporter called the theater directly, and staff confirmed that as long as the platform agreed to the refund, the theater could cooperate immediately—no rejection of refund existed.

After nearly two hours of “passing the buck,” the reporter repeatedly provided feedback from the theater, and only then did the platform agree 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 finally get the refund, feeling like I was being fooled.” On February 16, Ms. Li from Shenzhen, Guangdong, bought three tickets for a film roadshow at 8 p.m. on February 20, each costing about 700 yuan, totaling around 2,100 yuan, entrusted by a friend.

Less than an hour after purchase, her friend received a last-minute work call and couldn’t attend. Ms. Li tried to cancel the tickets but found no self-service refund option—only manual customer service. The response was: “You bought a special roadshow ticket, the platform does not support refunds.” After raising objections, customer service further explained that this was a theater requirement. The platform staff contacted the theater, which clearly refused the refund.

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

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 confirmed the theater always supported refunds. Realizing that the platform’s claims of “disagreement” and “efforts to negotiate” were just excuses to refuse refunds, she pointed out the discrepancy. Only after she made this clear did the customer service attitude soften, promising to assist again, but then delaying with reasons like “too many refunds that night and inability to contact relevant staff.” Only after calling again the next day did her three tickets finally get refunded.

“The platform isn’t unable to refund; it just doesn’t want to,” Ms. Li said.

Restrictions on refunds for special screenings make consumer rights difficult to defend. Some discounted tickets on e-commerce platforms also hide consumer traps.

On February 20, Ms. Zhang from Yuncheng, Shanxi Province, encountered a consumer dispute over discounted tickets. She bought two tickets for a theater screening about three hours later from a shop called “XX Discount Tickets” on a certain e-commerce platform, each costing 39 yuan. 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 replaced without notice.” After multiple attempts, Ms. Zhang had her cousin process the refund on the official platform, but was charged a 12-yuan fee.

Shared Responsibility of Platforms and Theaters

Are such rules—no refunds, restricted refunds, high fees—reasonable? How should consumers’ legal rights be protected against various refund and change barriers set by platforms and theaters?

Wu Di, associate professor at Shenyang Normal University Law School, believes that when consumers purchase tickets, 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 due to legitimate reasons constitutes a proper modification or termination of the contract. Refusing refunds or changes with reasons like “ticket validity” or “prevent malicious refunds” essentially exempts the operator from responsibility unilaterally and excludes the main rights of consumers, violating relevant provisions of the Civil Code and Consumer Rights Protection Law.

“According to the Civil Code, the party providing standard terms should determine rights and obligations fairly and reasonably, and must clearly prompt the other party about clauses that exempt or reduce liability, especially those with significant interests. In practice, some platforms and theaters neither clearly prompt nor properly disclose absolute or ‘one-size-fits-all’ no-refund policies, which clearly violate fairness principles and legal notification obligations,” Wu Di said.

Wu Di also pointed out that for high refund fees, if the fee significantly exceeds the actual loss of the operator, it constitutes an improper restriction of consumer rights and a disguised transfer of operational risks, which is also invalid due to unfairness under the law.

The reporter learned that as early as September 2018, the China Film Distribution and Screening Association issued a notice requiring theaters to prominently display “refund and change” policies in the lobby and to prompt online ticket buyers with a pop-up agreement before payment, only allowing further payment after clicking “agree.” However, in practice, this requirement is often not fully implemented.

Wu Di analyzed that the reason lies in the low industry standardization and weak enforcement, making it easy for operators to have “requirements without accountability.”

To address issues like no refunds, high 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 of platforms and theaters can consumer rights be better protected, and the long-term healthy development of the film industry promoted.