Legal analysis reveals gaps in China's prepaid consumption framework, suggesting reforms to promote consumer rights and sustainability.
Objectives: The study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of prepaid consumption in China, with a focus on consumer rights protection, and propose targeted legal and policy reforms to address existing issues and promote its healthy development. Theoretical Framework: Grounded in consumer protection theory, the analysis examines the imbalance of power between merchants and consumers, emphasizing information asymmetry and contractual inequities inherent in prepaid transactions. Method: The research uses doctrinal legal analysis to examine China’s regulatory framework for prepaid consumption, identifying gaps in laws and policies. It also employs case studies to explore consumer disputes and regulatory enforcement actions, offering empirical insights into the challenges faced by consumers and regulators. Additionally, it draws on academic articles and news reports to provide a broader context for the issues. Results and Discussion: The findings reveal significant gaps in China's current regulatory framework, including the lack of a specialized law, insufficient enforcement mechanisms, limited role of industry associations, and barriers to consumer redress. The study proposes a comprehensive reform framework to address these challenges. Research Implications: This paper proposes four key measures: enacting a specialized law, strengthening enforcement mechanisms, enhancing the role of industry associations, and reducing barriers to redress. Originality/Value: This study offers a comprehensive evaluation of China's prepaid consumption regulations and introduces innovative solutions to address existing challenges. By enhancing consumer protection and promoting sustainable practices, this research contributes to the broader goals of SDGs 12 and 16.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yanyan Cao (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: