Gym fitness card supervision regulations

The current regulatory regulations for gym fitness cards that have been implemented in various parts of the country focus on the three core mechanisms of prepaid fund depository, standard contract specification, and operator credit disclosure. They are directly aimed at the three types of fitness consumption disputes: "gym withdrawals, difficulty in returning and transferring cards, and overbearing clauses" that account for more than 80%. This is neither a restriction on the fitness industry nor a "full guarantee" for consumers. The essence is to delineate the rights and responsibilities of both parties for prepaid fitness consumption. Clear red lines.

Last week, I accompanied my downstairs neighbor to register for rights protection at the municipal prison. The owner of an Internet celebrity gym that had been open for less than half a year at the entrance of their community emptied the equipment overnight. According to statistics in the group, more than 50 consumers paid a total of nearly 200,000 in annual membership fees and private lessons. There is a high probability that this kind of thing will require collective civil litigation, and it may not be possible to get the money back even if it takes a year and a half. This time, the staff directly checked the merchant's supervision account. The 120,000 advance deposit deposit stored in it was enough to cover 80% of the refund, and the compensation process was completed in less than a week.

Let’s be honest, when the regulations first came out, there were a lot of objections in the fitness industry. Especially the operators of small studios, who originally relied on pre-collected card fees to pay rent, pay coaches’ salaries, and purchase equipment, suddenly required more than 30% of the pre-collected funds to be deposited into a designated supervision account, which could only be withdrawn in batches after users canceled classes, which directly locked up a large chunk of cash flow. I know a post-95 girl who opened a Pilates studio. She just raised money to open the store last year. Originally, she only had enough operating funds for three months in her account. If the original deposit ratio was met, she would have to close the store and transfer it.

It is precisely because of these practical concerns that regulations in various places are actually being adjusted differently and are not one-size-fits-all. For example, cities such as Shanghai and Shenzhen, which have relatively mature fitness industries, have introduced rules for credit rating supervision. Merchants with no consumer complaints for three consecutive years and a credit rating of A only need to deposit 10% of the funds received in advance, and can even use bank guarantees and performance insurance instead of cash deposits. I had dinner with the owner of a local fitness brand chain a while ago, and he said that last year they used bank guarantees to replace 2.4 million in cash deposits, which is equivalent to more than 2 million more working capital to expand community stores, and in fact, they are developing faster than before.

From the perspective of consumers, the current regulations are not perfect, and many details need to be completed. For example, the regulations clearly state that "unreasonable card transfer and card withdrawal restrictions shall not be set," but there is currently no unified quantitative standard for what "unreasonable" means. I received a private message from a fan a while ago. He had a card for two years and only used it for three months before he was transferred to work out of town by the company. He wanted to transfer the card to a friend, but the gym charged him 30% of the card transfer fee, which was more expensive than the remaining card fee. In the end, it had to be canceled directly. If you file a complaint at this time, the city supervisory department can only coordinate. There is no clear basis for punishment, which is inevitably a bit embarrassing.

I have talked with Section Chief Li in charge of cultural and sports consumer complaints in the district before, and they now have their own judgment standards in practice: as long as the consumer can come up with a reasonable basis for refunding the card - such as moving more than 3 kilometers away from the store, and a doctor's certificate stating that it is not suitable for exercise, even if the contract contains a clause that "no refunds will be made once the card is applied for", the clause will be directly judged to be invalid and the merchant will be required to calculate the refund based on the remaining consumption time. Last year, their jurisdiction handled 197 fitness card complaints, 92% of which were resolved within seven days, which was more than three times faster than the average processing time before the regulations were introduced.

I think the most valuable aspect of regulatory regulations is not money management, but information transparency. Now many cities have synchronized the credit rating, past complaint records, and custody of regulatory funds of all fitness institutions to the consumption disclosure platform. Consumers can see it by scanning the code before applying for a card. Who would apply for a three-year card for a gym that has been open for less than two months and has already received more than a dozen withdrawal complaints? From the root, a large number of unscrupulous merchants who want to harvest leeks by relying on advance payments can be screened out.

Of course, this set of regulations is still being adjusted on a trial basis in various places. After all, whether it is a gym owner who really wants to provide good services or a consumer who just wants to exercise well, no one wants to waste their energy on safeguarding their rights. Finding a balance between regulatory intensity and industry survival space, and returning fitness to its own meaning, is the ultimate effect of this set of regulations.