On July 17th, a news story titled \Family member passes away on the eve of a concert, platform refuses to refund tickets\ topped the trending list, sparking heated discussions among netizens. According to public reports, a consumer from Xi'an, Shaanxi, complained that he had purchased tickets for the \Auspicious and Wishful\ 2024 tour concert of Phoenix Legend in Xianyang on October 2024 for the November 3rd show, but faced the loss of his grandmother the night before the performance. Despite submitting a death medical certificate and cremation certificate to a certain platform, the platform still refused to refund the money on the grounds that \the ticket purchase page has already indicated that refunds and exchanges are not supported.\

Currently, there is no official response from the platform. Their customer service stated that after purchasing a ticket, if the person attending the performance passes away, the family members can provide a stamped death/cremation certificate, proof of relationship between the parties, and other documents that can substantiate the reason for the ticket refund. Whether the ticket can be successfully refunded after providing the proof will be subject to the final feedback results.

This is not an isolated case. The issue of \difficulty and high cost in returning concert tickets\ has become a major area of consumer complaints in recent years. The Jiangsu Provincial Consumer Rights Protection Committee's previously released \Special Analysis Report on Consumer Complaints in the Cultural and Entertainment Performance Market\ clearly pointed out that this problem is particularly prominent.

How to solve the dilemma of concert ticket refunds? A reporter from the \Legal Daily\ interviewed relevant experts on this issue.

Frequent difficulties and high costs in ticket refunds

Journalists have found that incidents of difficulty in refunding concert tickets have occurred multiple times.

The Consumer Protection platform recently received a collective complaint regarding the \Oriental·Bazaar Night\ event. Many consumers reported that on June 28th, the day of the event, they encountered extreme weather with high temperatures and heavy rain, leading to chaotic on-site management and a lack of supplies, which resulted in some audience members experiencing severe heatstroke symptoms such as vomiting, fainting, and convulsions, forcing them to leave early. When they requested ticket refunds from the ticketing platform and the event organizer, they were refused, with the platform even demanding a 120 heatstroke diagnosis certificate. Some consumers provided photos of heatstroke on-site or hospital diagnosis certificates, but they were still refused refunds or had their requests delayed with reasons such as \no 120 records\ or \unable to guarantee the outcome.\

According to statistics from the Consumer Protection platform, in the first half of 2025, among the complaints on major ticketing platforms, Damai Network topped the list with 13,063 cases, but the resolution rate was only 3.61%. Platforms such as Maoyan, Taopiaopiao, and Ticket Planet also had high complaint volumes. Among the various complaints on ticketing platforms, \refund and change issues\ accounted for as much as 49.8%, far exceeding issues like \unfair terms\, \lack of after-sales service\, and \false advertising\, becoming the \hotspot\.

On the Black Cat Complaint platform, the reporter searched with the keywords \concert + ticket refund\ and found that, as of now, there are more than 42,000 complaints. Consumers have reported various obstacles to ticket refunds: unable to attend due to train suspensions, typhoons, accidental fractures, family illnesses, etc., but the platform often refuses the application on the grounds of \non-refundable\ marked at the time of ticket purchase. Even in cases where ticket refunds are allowed, high handling fees or the closure of the refund channel long before the performance also make it difficult for consumers to accept.

The dilemma of ticket refunds also extends to the secondary ticket sales process. For example, for a band's concert in Chengdu, the secondary ticket sale time was far beyond the free refund period, and even some of the third ticket sales have completely stopped refunds. This means that consumers who bought tickets in the second round must bear at least a 30% handling fee for refunds, while those who bought tickets in the third round have completely lost their right to refund.

The Jiangsu Provincial Consumer Rights Protection Committee analyzed and pointed out that under the strict real-name system, tickets cannot be transferred. Consumers who purchase resold tickets pay the same price but do not enjoy the same right to refund. When consumers are unable to attend the performance due to unexpected situations, the platform often refuses refunds on the grounds of the \scarcity and timeliness\ of the tickets, increasing the burden on consumers.

Repeatedly denied ticket refunds by the platform

Facing consumers' reasonable yet repeatedly rejected ticket refund requests, legal experts conducted an in-depth analysis.

Professor Wang Yegang from the School of Law at Central University of Finance and Economics explained that concert ticket contracts belong to service contracts and do not apply to the \seven-day no-reason return\ provision in the Consumer Rights Protection Law. The platform's self-committed tiered refund rules (such as \refundable but with a handling fee if requested three days before the performance\) are binding, but consumers' demand for a full refund essentially advocates for the termination of the contract.

\The key lies in whether it constitutes 'force majeure'. According to the Civil Code, force majeure refers to 'objective circumstances that cannot be foreseen, avoided, or overcome'.\ Wang Yegang believes that events like \the death of a grandmother\, for contracts with strong emotional factors such as concerts, may prevent the parties from achieving their purpose of relaxation and pleasure, and should be recognized as force majeure. Consumers have the right to legally terminate the contract and demand a refund, and the platform must not exclude this right through standard terms.

Yinghe Law Firm lawyer Zhao Yan pointed out that the force majeure stipulated by the Civil Code must meet the \unforeseeable, unavoidable, and insurmountable\ three requirements, usually referring to natural disasters, government actions, and other objective events with social nature. Strictly speaking, \the death of a family member\ is an emergency event within a specific individual's family and does not fully conform to the \universal social nature\ characteristic of force majeure. However, such events have a strong justification on the level of human emotions. In judicial practice, courts usually support consumers' refund claims in such cases based on public order and good customs, humanistic morals, and even the principle of changed circumstances.

Why do the phenomena of difficulty in ticket refunds and high costs for refunds frequently occur?

Associate Professor Hu Xiang from the Law School of Capital University of Economics and Business pointed out that this situation is intertwined with multiple dilemmas of law, industry rules, and regulation. Legally, there is controversy over whether concert tickets are subject to the \seven-day no-reason return\ exception and whether the death of a relative constitutes force majeure. Platforms often refuse to apply force majeure on the grounds that \tickets do not have direct personal attributes,\ making it difficult for consumers to protect their rights. At the industry level, the strong real-name system implemented to combat \scalpers\ prevents consumers from transferring tickets on their own to minimize losses and forces them to rely on platform channels. At the same time, as the agent of the organizer, the platform's profits are often linked to ticket sales, and ticket refunds directly affect their interests, leading to a lack of motivation.

\In terms of regulation, consumer complaints often fall into a cycle of 'platform refusal—regulatory coordination—organizer shirking', with regulatory authorities lacking coercive power. In addition, the performance ticketing industry lacks a unified standard for refunds and changes, with the power to set rules held by platforms and organizers, forming a stark contrast to industries such as aviation and railways that have established mature tiered refund mechanisms. Consumers also face information asymmetry, with platforms often delaying processing on the pretext of 'inability to contact the organizer'.\ Hu Xiang said.

In response to the widespread requirement of the platform that ticket refunds must be made \before the service begins,\ such as before boarding or before the performance starts, Hu Xiang believes this is not entirely reasonable. He points out that the regulation does not take into account the unexpected situations that consumers may encounter, such as feeling unwell before departure or getting sick on the way to the performance, lacking flexibility, and shifting all the risks onto the consumers, which violates the principles of fairness and honesty and trustworthiness.

Hu Xiang suggested that for exits after the service begins due to special reasons (not the responsibility of the merchant), the platform should deduct the reasonable costs that have occurred, such as venue fees, artist remuneration ratios, etc., and refund the remaining ticket money; if it is due to the merchant's responsibility, such as equipment failure, performance content violations, etc., resulting in the service being unable to continue, consumers should enjoy the right to a full refund.

The ticket refund mechanism is in urgent need of optimization.

How to break the deadlock? The interviewed experts unanimously believe that the ticket refund mechanisms of mature industries such as aviation and railways can be referenced.

Hu Xiang suggests that ticketing platforms should build a more comprehensive ticket refund system. In terms of time dimension, they can refer to the ladder rules of the railway department: set a short free \cooling-off period\ after ticket purchase, such as 24 or 48 hours; then, according to the number of days until the performance, charge a ladder fee, for example, 10% to 20% for more than 7 days, 30% to 40% for 3 to 7 days, and for 3 days or less, either no longer accept refunds or charge a high fee of 50% or more; and close the online refund channel 3 days before the performance, only retaining the offline emergency processing channel.

\For the case of full refund, it is necessary to clarify the scope and strict audit standards: for ticket refunds due to sudden illness, a hospital certificate clearly marked 'not suitable for watching the performance' is required; for the death of a close relative, a cremation certificate and a notarized relationship certificate are required (limiting the scope of close relatives); for those who cannot watch the performance due to public events such as epidemics or natural disasters, unconditional refunds can be made based on government announcements; for performance cancellations, postponements, or serious quality of service issues, such as seat obstruction or misrepresentation in publicity, consumers should have the right to a refund.\ Hu Xiang said.

Technological empowerment is also seen as the key to improving efficiency.

Hu Xiang suggested introducing blockchain technology to achieve traceability and compliance of tickets, allowing consumers to resell tickets through the platform within a certain period before the performance, such as 30 days (the platform can charge a small fee), which not only reduces the pressure of ticket refunds but also suppresses \scalpers\. At the same time, build an intelligent review system to handle proof materials, set a 48-hour limit for manual review of complex cases, and establish an independent appeal channel.

\Regulation and industry collaboration are essential safeguards. Relevant departments should incorporate reasonable ticket refund plans into the pre-conditions for performance approval and take the lead in formulating unified industry standards, specifying the maximum handling fees and the deadline for ticket refunds. Strengthening data interoperability between platforms and medical and public security systems can efficiently verify medical certificates and kinship relationships, significantly reducing the review time and enhancing consumer experience,\ said Hu Xiang.

Wang Yegan emphasized that the platform must fulfill its obligation to \prominently prompt\ the rules for refunds and changes, such as clearly informing the conditions on the ticket purchase page by using bolding, pop-ups, and other methods, to eliminate hidden terms. The review process should also be transparent, providing feedback on the results as soon as possible (such as within 24 hours) after receiving the materials. If a refund application is rejected, the reasons must be explained in detail.