In the spirit of lifelong learning, many individuals opt to pursue further studies in their spare time for personal growth and development. The Consumer Council observes that social media has emerged as a popular marketing tool among traders, who often use compelling claims such as “100% refund guarantee”, “proven success and guaranteed return on investment”, “personalised one-on-one guidance” or “limited-time discounts for immediate enrolment” to promote their courses. However, consumers trusting these claims may end up in disputes when the course content fails to deliver as promised or when they are pressured into purchasing additional products or services. Regrettably, the Council often receives complaints related to such courses. For instance, a student was promised a “100% refund guarantee” by the course advisor, but was later denied a refund on multiple grounds when the course content was considered not meeting expectations. Other cases involved a course that claimed to offer personalised wealth appreciation strategies but was actually a front for selling overseas property agent services; as well as a trader that attracted students with free course vouchers, requested a deposit, and then became uncontactable. All these practices have significantly harmed consumer interests.
The Council urges the industry to always maintain honest and ethical business practices. Traders should provide a clear explanation of the course content and disclose any potential or additional costs to consumers during the sales process. Moreover, the terms and conditions for fulfilling the advertised promises, such as refund guarantees, should be clearly outlined. If consumers decide to discontinue the course and request a refund, it is the obligation of traders to honour their commitment. Furthermore, the Council disapproves of dubious practices where “training courses” are used as a ploy to attract consumers for unrelated business purposes, and urges immediate reform within the industry. Consumers are also advised not to be solely influenced by promotions, but to make informed decisions after thoroughly reviewing a course’s reputation, assessing whether the course content meets their needs, and fully understanding the course details.
Case 1: Marketing Course Touted 100% Refund Guarantee but Denied Refund with Various Excuses
When scrolling through social media, the complainant came across Company A’s online business course on social media marketing priced at $87,000. After a free consultation with a course advisor, she was assured that the monthly cost would be no more than $8,700 (tuition payable in 10 instalments), plus an additional $520 for advertising on the related social media platform. The advisor further persuaded her by citing a successful case of a former student who reportedly earned a million dollars in just 3 months, and offered her a “100% refund guarantee” with immediate enrolment. 4 months into the course, the complainant discovered that growing the customer base as instructed would actually require an extra investment of $1,400 per month for various supporting digital tools (e.g. customer reservation, sales, and data analysis systems). Feeling that the course did not live up to its initial promise, she raised her concerns with Company A, and requested a refund of the $34,800 tuition (total amount for 4 months) she had already paid by citing the “100% refund guarantee”. However, Company A repeatedly declined her refund request, giving various reasons such as requiring the complainant to complete the course and settling the full tuition first, or that she had not actively followed the course instructions to purchase the necessary digital tools. The complainant hence lodged a complaint with the Council.
Responding to the Council’s intervention, Company A stated that the complainant was not eligible for the refund guarantee because she paid the tuition in instalments. They also added that since the complainant could not provide evidence of having followed the course instructions, they would not issue a refund. The Council recommended the complainant to consider seeking legal advice before deciding whether to pursue further action against Company A.
Case 2: Course Claiming to Teach Wealth Appreciation Strategy Turned Out to Be a Front for Selling Overseas Property Agent Services
The complainant saw an advertisement for Company B’s personal finance management course on social media. It highlighted benefits such as asset optimisation analysis and the chance to consult with an A-list lecturer, who would offer investment tips and personally devise a personalised wealth appreciation strategy for each student. Enticed by these benefits, the complainant paid a tuition of $48,000 to enrol in the course. However, during his one-on-one consultation with Company B’s financial advisor, he learned that the so-called wealth appreciation strategy was merely a proposal to invest in overseas properties on his own, or appoint Company B’s agent services for these investments at a cost of over a hundred thousand dollars. Believing that the course did not match the advertised content, the complainant requested a refund. After 6 months of unfruitful communication and failing to receive any concrete response nor a refund from Company B, the complainant sought assistance from the Council.
The complainant later informed the Council that, following its intervention, Company B had reached out to discuss a resolution. Ultimately, Company B agreed to refund the full tuition fee, thereby resolving the case.
Case 3: Life Coaching Course Provider Used Free Voucher as Bait
Refused Deposit Refund and Became Uncontactable
The complainant received a free electronic voucher for Company C’s 5-day life coaching course from an online friend. During her meeting with a company representative, she was asked to pay a deposit of $7,800, with the assurance that it would be refunded by cheque upon completion of the course. The complainant questioned the need for a deposit for a free course, to which the representative explained that it was simply a measure to keep students committed in class. Bombarded with an hour of persuasion, the complainant eventually agreed to pay the deposit. Later, she discovered numerous scam reports online related to life coaching courses, and decided to request a refund of her deposit before the course began. Company C refused, stating that the deposit would only be returned upon course completion. Shortly after, it became uncontactable, which led the complainant to seek assistance from the Council.
Using the contact information provided by the complainant, the Council made multiple attempts to reach Company C via mail, email, and phone calls, but to no avail. The Council recommended the complainant to consider seeking further legal advice and exploring other legal options for redress. The complainant also mentioned the possibility of reporting the incident to the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department (C&ED).
Continuing education is meant to advance one’s growth and development. If courses do not deliver their promises or have hidden commercial agendas, consumers may feel deceived. This not only compromises consumer rights but also seriously damages the reputation of Hong Kong’s education and service industries. It is therefore crucial for the industry to recognise and address these issues promptly. Traders are obligated to ensure the accuracy of their claims and to provide clear terms for any guarantees they offer. Failing to do so could potentially violate the Trade Descriptions Ordinance. When choosing a course, consumers may consider the following advice:
- Social media platforms are filled with advertisements for various products and services, all competing for consumers’ attention. It is essential to stay clear-headed and critically evaluate the necessity of these advertised products or services, thereby avoiding impulsive purchases or falling prey to potential scams;
- Before enrolling in a course, try to gain a fair understanding of its content, mode of instruction, class suspension and make-up class policies, instructor qualifications, the course provider’s reputation, and other relevant details. If a course offers a “refund guarantee”, ensure that the terms and conditions are clearly outlined in the contract or receipt. It is advisable to keep all transaction documents after enrolment for future record of evidence;
- The rise in online distance learning courses has undeniably broadened options for consumers. However, one should be aware that some of these courses are offered by overseas providers, and that in the event of a dispute, seeking redress across different jurisdictions can be challenging. Therefore, it is essential to assess the credibility of a course through different channels beforehand;
- If referrals are required for course completion, but the associated arrangement and its terms and conditions were not disclosed during the sales process, the course provider may have committed an offence of misleading omission under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance. Consumers who suspect traders of such deceptive practices can report directly to the C&ED, or file a complaint with the Council for referral.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/581-further-studies
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.