With World Consumer Rights Day on March 15 approaching, travel consumption has become a hot topic for consumer rights discussions this year. To guide tourists toward civilized travel, rational consumption, and lawful rights protection, the Changsha Tourism Quality Supervision and Management Office has specially selected some typical travel complaint cases for analysis, aiming to strengthen tourists' awareness of rights protection and encourage them to use effective methods to safeguard their legitimate rights.
*Analysis of Typical Group Buying Travel Cases
Case 1: On July 14, 2012, Ms. Huang and her family participated in a one-day tour to a scenic spot in Liuyang organized by a local travel agency, arranged by the administrator of the QQ group "Happy Gathering." After using the restroom in the scenic area, she slipped on a wet floor and suffered a right leg fracture. Since the activity was organized through the QQ group administrator and no travel contract was signed, and because Ms. Huang did not provide her ID number to the travel agency, the agency also did not purchase travel accident insurance for her.
Case 2: On August 15, 2012, Ms. Luo purchased a group-buying deal for a rafting trip in Ningxiang Weishan organized by a local travel agency. Because it was bought online, she only picked up the rafting tickets at the agency, without signing a contract or receiving a payment receipt. During the rafting, an accident occurred when the raft capsized, causing Ms. Luo to sustain serious arm injuries. She was hospitalized and received over 20 stitches, with two fingers still numb. The travel agency advanced more than 10,000 yuan for medical expenses, but Ms. Luo still required follow-up treatment and rehabilitation, leading her to file a complaint about the subsequent compensation.
Analysis: In recent years, the new consumption model of group buying travel has surged in the tourism market, but the resulting complaints have also become increasingly prominent. The above cases are two of the many group buying travel disputes handled by our office last year. Due to the issue of personal injury compensation, we have specifically analyzed them here to raise public awareness.
Netizens who have experienced group buying travel may know that the general process is as follows: First, the group buying website signs an agreement with the merchant, then the website publishes product and service information to attract consumers. Next, consumers see the information on the website, decide to purchase, complete the order and payment to obtain an electronic code for consumption. Then, consumers use the electronic code to pick up goods or consume at the merchant. Finally, the group buying website and the merchant settle the transaction. Specifically, for current group buying travel, the travel agency and the group buying website establish a legal relationship of agency through a cooperation agreement. The group buying website sells products on behalf of the travel agency within the authorized scope, and the legal consequences are still borne by the travel agency. However, in actual travel, group members do not sign a travel contract again but only rely on an electronic code to prove they have paid for the service. In reality, the group buying website is not the contractual party providing travel services, as operating travel services requires administrative permission from tourism authorities, which such websites do not have. Therefore, in group buying travel cases like the two above, where no invoices, travel contracts, or other related materials are issued, it is very difficult for tourists to provide valid evidence when complaining, making rights protection extremely challenging.
Additionally, some websites may introduce vague restrictive clauses to increase attractiveness, such as "No cancellations after successful group buying," "For changes to check-in dates or issues upon arrival, customers must negotiate directly with the hotel," or "Phone consultations are temporarily not accepted; all group buying order information can be queried on the website." Once such unfair terms appear, consumers should question whether the group buying activity is fraudulent.
Moreover, one of the best tools attracting consumers to group buying travel is low prices, often dubbed "clickbait" in the travel industry. However, the prices promoted on websites are mostly "starting prices," with many additional conditions, such as tourists having to pay hundreds of yuan extra for attraction tickets.
In short, regardless of the sales model used for travel services, including purchasing travel products online or through QQ groups, it is essential to sign a standardized and comprehensive travel contract with the travel agency, specifying standards for accommodation, vehicles, meals, and detailing the number of shopping stops arranged by the agency, the names of shopping locations, the maximum duration of each stop, and any additional paid activities and their prices. Tourists are advised to sign contracts at the travel agency's service outlets. If door-to-door service is needed, they should request the staff to carry proof of the agency's business qualifications. After paying for the trip, tourists should ask the agency for an invoice and keep it safe.
According to the "Regulations on Travel Agencies," it is a violation for travel agencies to fail to sign a travel contract with tourists, to delegate travel services to another agency without the tourist's consent, or to delegate to an agency without the proper qualifications. Upon investigation and verification, tourism administrative authorities may impose administrative penalties in accordance with the law.
*Analysis of Typical Self-Guided Travel Cases
Case 3: In July 2011, Mr. Li posted online to gather people for an outdoor adventure, agreeing to "AA costs, approximately 60 yuan per person," including Mr. Wang and 12 others. That night, a sudden heavy rain at the campsite triggered a flash flood, and Mr. Wang was swept away and killed. His parents sued Mr. Li and the other 11 participants, demanding joint liability for personal injury compensation.
Case 4: In March 2012, Mr. Zhu posted on an outdoor website operated by a company to organize a self-registered mountain climbing activity. The initiators were Mr. Zhu and Mr. Zhang, and the post included an itinerary and a disclaimer. Mr. Zhao signed up. During the activity, Mr. Zhao suddenly showed signs of collapse and later died despite rescue efforts. His parents sued Mr. Zhu, Mr. Zhang, and the company for compensation.
Analysis: With economic development and improved living standards, self-guided travel has become an increasingly important way to travel. Its element of the unknown and challenge has made it especially popular among young people, particularly trendsetters. Currently, there is no unified definition of self-guided travel, but it is generally considered a type of travel where tourists freely choose service combinations based on their own conditions (including time, budget, physical condition, etc.). Online, self-guided travelers are often affectionately called "travel buddies," with experienced ones referred to as "head buddies"—the initiators of activities—but not legal "organizers," as they lack authority over others. Legally, an "organizer" has certain powers, such as issuing commands and creating obligations, and must also bear corresponding responsibilities. In travel, an "organizer" should at least have authority over personal management, property control, and activity supervision. In self-guided travel, the initiator's role is to promote the route, explain difficulty levels, plan the trip, and select team members. Online, they are merely advocates, and their rights and obligations during the activity are no different from others.
Compared to traditional travel, self-guided travel has several characteristics: First, participants independently arrange transportation, accommodation, routes, and itineraries. Though more effortful than agency-organized travel, its freedom is also its advantage. Second, costs are shared equally (AA system), with no profit motive. With the internet's development, self-guided travel is usually initiated by a head buddy posting online, with others joining to form a team and sharing costs. Third, it carries certain risks, often choosing undeveloped or immature routes with higher personal danger. Fourth, it promotes teamwork but lacks strict organization, being temporary and loosely structured.
Common unfortunate events in self-guided travel include car accidents, floods, avalanches, falls, getting lost, injuries, illnesses, and equipment failures. However, apart from profit-driven self-guided trips, intentional or negligent torts between individuals or third parties, and other accidents that can be resolved under the "Contract Law" or "Tort Liability Law," cases like the above remain valuable for discussion.
For example, the two cases above involve self-guided travel organized through posts and replies, which cannot yet be considered typical civil legal acts. A civil legal act is a lawful act performed by a civil subject to establish, modify, or terminate civil rights and obligations, with expression of intent as a fundamental element. From the process of self-guided travel, even if not explicitly stated, there are customary basic rules: independent judgment, voluntary participation, free grouping, self-prepared gear, self-reliance, and self-funded. Thus, while there is expression of intent, the subjective goal is not to create civil legal consequences, nor does it objectively establish civil rights and obligations. Posters, as registered forum users, are aware of this. The purpose of posting is not to establish legal rights and obligations, so it cannot be legally evaluated. It is similar to inviting friends for a meal or playing cards—outside the scope of legal regulation. Additionally, there is currently no law regulating self-guided travel, nor are there obligations imposed on initiators to ensure smooth activities. Therefore, self-guided travel is essentially a goodwill act, non-commercial, not legally protected, and not a strict civil legal act. While goodwill acts are generally not regulated by law, they are not entirely unregulated. For instance, Article 37(1) of the "Tort Liability Law" imposes relatively high safety obligations on operators of profit-making public places or organizers of mass activities, holding them liable for torts if at fault. Although non-profit organizers are not included, Chinese tort law does not stipulate that safety obligations require a profit motive. Thus, non-profit organizers also bear minimal safety duties. If a goodwill act involves gross negligence causing significant loss and meets tort law liability conditions, the actor must bear responsibility.
Therefore, in self-guided travel, unless the tortfeasor is grossly negligent, the defense of voluntary assumption of risk can be used to avoid liability.
In summary, self-guided travel is about exploration, not risking one's life. While it promotes teamwork, its essence is self-reliance, meaning personal effort rather than over-dependence. Morally, everyone has a duty to help others, but failing this duty does not necessarily result in legal punishment. Here, we especially remind self-guided travel enthusiasts to prioritize safety while pursuing interests. Don’t just focus on the thrill of outdoor activities while ignoring the risks. Prepare well before departure, such as buying insurance, taking safety precautions, planning routes, and preparing emergency plans for unexpected events.
*Analysis of Typical Travel Voucher Cases
Case 5: Ms. Wang, who works in Changsha, purchased a 100,000-yuan fund and received two VIP vouchers for a 4-day, 3-night Hong Kong-Macau tour for two from the fund company last year. The vouchers included three-star accommodation and meals in Hong Kong and Macau, with travelers only responsible for round-trip transportation from Shenzhen. Ms. Wang and her mother signed up via the phone number on the voucher. Upon arriving in Shenzhen, the tour guide charged each person 270 yuan for customs fees. Ms. Wang noticed that over 20 other tourists in the group had also received their vouchers through giveaways or lotteries. During their stay in Hong Kong and Macau, Ms. Wang and others were forced to shop. The tour guide took them to hidden shopping spots—ordinary storefronts with no outward signs, but behind secret doors were crowded with mainland tourists. Guards prevented them from leaving until they purchased jewelry and stayed for at least two hours, enduring verbal abuse. Fearing for their safety, they bought expensive but often counterfeit jewelry, watches, and cameras. In Macau, the guide demanded another 400 yuan per person for a tour guide fee but only took them to two free casinos. The nightmare experience left Ms. Wang distraught, prompting her to complain to tourism authorities. Investigation revealed the "XX Travel Company" on the voucher did not exist, and the supposedly 1,750-yuan voucher was worthless.
Case 6: Aunt Yang bought an insurance policy and received a "Hong Kong-Macau couple tour" voucher. Following the instructions on the voucher for "China Shenzhen International Travel Group," she and a companion traveled from Shanghai to Shenzhen at their own expense, meeting the guide and other group members at Huanggang Port, ready to cross the border. On the bus to Hong Kong, the guide announced shopping stops. Those refusing had to pay 600 yuan as "compensation." Though unhappy, Aunt Yang paid. In Hong Kong, the guide took the group to a jewelry store. When she refused, the guide scolded her, saying she shouldn’t have joined if she wouldn’t buy. Aunt Yang mentioned paying the compensation, and the guide backed off. Later, she learned that some group members who didn’t shop had their rooms cut off from water and electricity or were locked inside. Regretting joining the cheap tour, Aunt Yang complained afterward. Investigation found the "China Shenzhen International Travel Group" did not exist.
Analysis: In recent years, complaints about "free Hong Kong-Macau couple tours" have been common. However, the travel agencies—or even unlicensed black agencies—behind these schemes carefully design steps to make complaints nearly impossible. This is crucial to highlight to the public.
The promotional tactics for free travel vouchers generally involve travel agencies partnering with merchants to sell Hong Kong-Macau tours at extremely low prices through vouchers, with the "agency" covering traveler costs as a merchant promotion. Merchants then pass these vouchers to tourists as gifts, rewards, or bonuses, ultimately arranging the travel through the agency.
Thus, travel agencies distribute vouchers through other merchants, but tourists do not sign contracts with Hong Kong or Shenzhen reception parties—no written agreement means no evidence. While tickets, audio, or video may be preliminarily accepted as evidence, they require legal debate to be valid. Additionally, agencies require tourists to travel to Shenzhen first, making it the departure point for the "Hong Kong-Macau tour." Even with evidence, complaints must be filed in Shenzhen or Hong Kong.
Clearly, these seemingly free vouchers come at a high cost. Such sales are zero or negative fare operations—essentially repackaged versions of past zero-fare tour scams. The "Regulations on Travel Agencies," Articles 27 and 53(2), explicitly prohibit zero-fare tours that harm tourists. Thus, when choosing travel products, tourists should first beware of promotions touting "free," "special," or "low" prices, avoiding price as the sole criterion. Resist the temptation of bargains and remember the principle that "you get what you pay for." Second, travel products are special goods, and travel agencies are the only legitimate operators. No other businesses may sell travel services. When purchasing, whether through merchant giveaways or membership benefits, tourists must sign a written contract with the agency, detailing routes, accommodations, transportation, and liabilities, and review the contract carefully before signing and stamping it. During travel, if guides mislead or coerce tourists into paid activities, evidence should be preserved, and reports filed with local police or tourism authorities at the contract location or defendant’s jurisdiction.