Shanghai Disney refuses to mediate, who gives you the confidence?!

 Shanghai Disney refuses to mediate, who gives you the confidence?!

According to Renmin. com, the Shanghai Pudong Consumer Protection Commission said that Shanghai Disney would not accept mediation and would not make changes to the prohibited food and package inspection regulations.

As for the Public Affairs Department of Disneyland Headquarters, staff members responded that they could not answer questions about Shanghai Disneyland.

Is there really no room for reasoning? If we follow the legal procedure, how much will we win? Lets listen to both sides again.u2014u2014

Question 1

Is it an invasion of privacy?

A big controversy about the Shanghai Disney Pack Check is whether it violates personal privacy.

Voice of Netizens

Shanghai Disney has no right to check touristsbags, which is suspected to infringe consumers personal dignity and privacy.

Shanghai Disney Voice

The gardener is for the sake of safety, which is in accordance with the requirements of relevant departments.

Industry Perspective

Yan Chuang, a partner of Beijing Zhongwen Law Firm, said that Shanghai Disneyland staff were suspected of violating consumerspersonal rights and personal dignity and privacy by turning over their bags. Packing inspection can only be authorized by laws and regulations. As an enterprise, Shanghai Disney clearly belongs to the exercise of management power beyond its own jurisdiction.

Question 2

In the Shanghai Disney incident, the most criticized is the double-label rule, which is what netizens call Europe and the United States can not bring Asia with them.

Voice of Netizens

Disney has six major parks around the world. According to media reports, Disney has no ban on food. Shanghai Disneys regulation is obviously a double standard and discriminatory policy.

Shanghai Disney Voice

Shanghai Disneyland did not respond specifically to this question, but the Department of Public Affairs of Disneyland Headquarters in the United States responded that each Disneyland under the headquarters has its own policies.

Industry Perspective

Hu Gang, a lawyer at Chaoyang Law Firm in Beijing, believes that this is a double standard. Relevant operators, known as multinational enterprises, have not adhered to the first-class corporate social responsibility, embodied the consumer first business philosophy, and failed to implement a globally consistent business strategy.

Question 3

Is it an overlord clause to prohibit self-brought food?

Disney Park in Shanghai forbids carrying food into the park. Can you bring your own food? And is the price of food in the garden too high?

Voice of Netizens

Shanghai Disney said the rules are in line with most theme parks in China and Disneys other destinations in Asia. If visitors bring food or drinks, they can enjoy them in the rest area outside the park.

Industry Perspective

Chen Jian, director of the Legal and Theoretical Research Department of the Chinese Consumer Association, believes that the right to self-management of enterprises cannot be based on depriving consumers of their rights and limiting public interests.

Question 4

Whos in charge of Disney?

At present, Disneys attitude has been very clear, regardless of Disney headquarters in the United States; Shanghai Disney still adheres to the original practice, without any concessions, and does not accept the mediation of relevant departments.

Reporters have made contact with the State Administration of Market Supervision, and the General Administration has not made a statement at present, which needs further reply. At the same time, because the CPPCA has no law enforcement power, it can not make compulsory corrections to Disneys related acts.

Therefore, at present, only through judicial channels can consumers further safeguard their rights. Earlier, students from East China University of Political Science and Law had sued Shanghai Disney.

Question 5

Can consumers win the multinational giants?

Consumers are weak, and the enterprises they face are multinational giants. Can they win even if they take the judicial approach?

In response, the reporter interviewed experts and legal professionals.

1. Compulsory turnover

Article 27 of the Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law stipulates: Operators shall not insult or slander consumers, search consumersbodies and articles they carry, or infringe upon consumers personal freedom.

Chen Jian believes that Shanghai Disneys package search is harmful to consumerspersonal rights and interests if it is based on the protection of operators own interests.

(function (){(window. slotbydup = window. slotbydup | []). push ({id:6374560, container:ssp_6374560, size:300,250, display:inlay-fix, async: true});} (); Yan Chuang said that Disney staff checked purses suspected of violating consumerspersonal rights, violating consumers personal dignity and privacy. 2. On the issue of overlord clause, Hu Gang holds that Disneys prohibition of carrying food into the park requirement is an illegal standard clause, namely overlord clause, which is invalid. Yan Chuang believes that according to the relevant provisions of the Contract Law, the relationship between tourists and Shanghai Disneyland is an equal civil subject, and that its unilateral formulation prohibits tourists from carrying food is a standard clause, which is suspected of infringing on touristsright of choice and fair trade. It can only enter the park to consume high-priced food, which is suspected of monopoly. The relevant legal provisions are listed! Lets wait for the final result. Source: Editor-in-Charge of Red Net: Wang Xiaoyi_NE0011

Yan Chuang said that Disney staffs check-ups were suspected of violating consumerspersonal rights and personal dignity and privacy.

2. On the Overlord Clause

Hu Gang believes that Disneys prohibition of carrying food into the park requirement is an illegal format clause, namely the overlord clause, which is invalid.