Shanghai Disney prohibits self-catering. Most consumers dare not speak up in anger.

 Shanghai Disney prohibits self-catering. Most consumers dare not speak up in anger.

An embarrassing and awkward little table

On January 28, Xiao Wang Hua bought a Disneyland one-day tour special ticket online for 365 yuan and went to play on January 30. When purchasing tickets, we did not see any relevant tips such as `no food. Before entering the garden, Xiao Wang spent more than 40 yuan to buy snacks such as biscuits, which were all unpacked and original packaged food. But at the entrance, the park staff stopped Xiao Wang and asked him to check his backpack.

At that time, the staff saw that I had brought snacks, first asked me to throw away the snacks, a more tough attitude. Xiao Wang recalled, I disagree, and he said that I should eat at the small table at the entrance to the garden or put it in a nearby locker.

The reporter of China Youth Daily and China Youth Network learned that the small table referred to by the park staff is the pain of many netizens who go to Disney to play. At these two tables at the entrance to the park, some tourists often have to gobble down the food they carry on the spot because they are reluctant to discard it. The deposit cabinet recommended by the park staff costs 80 yuan a day. The snacks I bought are not so expensive. How can I afford to deposit them? Xiao Wang said.

It is reported that there was a dispute between the two sides at that time, Xiao Wang dialed 110 and made a record with the police. After returning, this matter has not been solved. Since then, Xiao Wang has also called 12345 and 12315 complaint hotlines for complaints. They told me that theNo foodrule was enacted by Disneyland and complied with the law, and I told them it was clearly illegal. Later it was gone.

Most consumers dare not speak in anger

After returning to school, Xiao Wang found what the park staff said in the Tourist Notes column on the official website of Shanghai Disneyland Resort: Food is not allowed to be brought into the park. I didnt get any tips before I checked in.

The reporter of China Youth Daily and China Youth Network learned that when Shanghai Disney opened its garden, the regulation of prohibiting self-contained food was widely questioned by the public and only stayed at the stage of prohibiting self-contained food without packaging. At that time, the explanation of Shanghai Disney was that there was food safety hidden danger in unpackaged and unpackaged food.

However, since November 15, 2017, Shanghai Disney has adjusted its visitors instructions, such as No food, alcoholic beverages, non-alcoholic beverages exceeding 600 ml which is similar to the original package, sealed, unsealed and accessible without any processing or processing in the past. Food is far from the same. In the case of summer and crowded queues, visitors can only spend 20 yuan to buy a bottle of Coke in Shanghai Disney Park for a whole day.

In order to understand the publics attitude towards the prohibited food entering Shanghai Disneyland, Xiao Wang and three Huazheng students conducted a survey. According to Xiao Wang, the survey results show that most people believe that the purpose of the relevant provisions of Shanghai Disneyland is to improve the income of the catering industry in the park, thereby infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.

On March 5, 2019, Xiao Wang filed a lawsuit with the Peoples Court of Pudong New Area in Shanghai. In his lawsuit, he made the following lawsuit requests: (1) To confirm that the standard clause of Shanghai Disneyland prohibiting tourists from carrying food into the park is invalid. (2) Request Shanghai Disneyland to compensate the plaintiff for the loss, including the cost of food purchased by the plaintiff outside Disneyland but forcibly discarded due to the unreasonable rules of the defendant, totalling 46.3 yuan.

Xiao Wang recalled that the trial lasted from 13:45 on that day to about 17:00. Xiao Wang found in the survey that although many consumers expressed their dissatisfaction with the relevant rules of Shanghai Disney, when referring to the prosecution, they all chose the options of forget and too troublesome. Managers often use consumerspsychology to drill legal loopholes and infringe consumers legitimate interests.

We hope to appeal to the public to pay more attention to their own rights and interests and say no to the unreasonable system through this lawsuit. Therefore, no matter what the outcome of this case is, we will not be dissuaded and will stick to the lawsuit to the end. Xiao Wang said.

But according to the reporter of China Youth Daily and China Youth Network, Xiao Wangs way to safeguard his rights may be another long and lasting war. In March last year, Liu Demin sued Shanghai Disneyland for childrens ticket standards are not in line with the actual case, which has not yet been closed. At that time, Liu Demin, like Xiao Wang, received the support of public opinion and the lawyers, but more than a year later, the case has not yet been followed up. Liu Demin told reporters that later, consumer rights protection committees in Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces jointly interviewed some operators of childrens playgrounds, and the other side promised to use age as a preferential standard for ticket purchasing. But this other party does not include Shanghai Disney.

Lawyer: There is a legal basis for college studentspetition

Article 7, Article 11, Article 16, Article 26 and Article 40 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law of China have relevant legal basis to follow. For example, Article 26 of the Consumer Insurance Law stipulates that operators shall not make unfair and unreasonable provisions to consumers, such as excluding or restricting consumersrights, mitigating or exempting operators responsibilities, and increasing consumersresponsibilities, by means of format clauses, notices, declarations, shop notices, etc. They shall not make use of format clauses and resort to technicians. Section mandatory transaction. Where format clauses, notices, declarations, shop notices, etc. contain the contents listed in the preceding paragraph, their contents shall be null and void; Article 11 stipulates that consumers who suffer personal or property damage as a result of purchasing, using commodities or receiving services shall enjoy the right to compensation according to law.

Bai Shucai said that Shanghai Disneys prohibition of self-catering provisions violated the compulsory provisions of Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Consumer Insurance Law and should be invalid provisions or provisions. As for the property loss that Xiao Wang had to abandon his own food, Shanghai Disney was liable for compensation. Xiao Wang could claim compensation for the loss to Shanghai Disney in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 and Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Consumer Insurance Law.

Xiao Wangs two petitions have corresponding legal basis, and provide corresponding evidence, from the case itself, there is evidence to follow, there is law to follow. Bai Shucai said.

Reporters noted that the Shanghai Disney side argued in court that consumers were not forced to eat in the park. Consumers could choose to eat in the park or return to the park after dining out of the park. Consumers had a choice and their right of choice was not limited.

However, Yuan Li, Xiaowangs lawyer and lawyer of Shanghai Zhijun Law Firm, pointed out that eating out of the garden also harms consumersrights. Because of the large area of the park, there are many games. By dining time, visitors are far away from the entrance. At this time, if they want to go out for dinner, they must return to the entrance area on the original way and queue up again to enter Disneyland after the meal.

She believes that this is a disguised force for consumers to choose between playing time and dining out of the garden: if consumers are unwilling to waste playing time, they can only choose expensive food in the garden; if consumers choose dining out of the garden, they will seriously waste playing time.

In addition, Disney argues that consumers may bring special smelling or potentially unsafe food into the park and discard garbage at will. Therefore, the food clause is not allowed to be carried, which is a clause that must be made based on the maintenance of public health and safety in the park.

Journalists from China Youth Daily and China Youth Network will continue to follow up on the latest developments in this case.

Source: Han Yukun_NBJ11142, Responsible Editor of China Youth Daily