Legal analysis: there is no uniform standard for the pricing of early education courses, but there is a "hidden rule" of "50% refund for the first third, 30% refund for the first half and no refund for the second half". This restriction is an unequal and unreasonable transaction requirement, which is also commonly known as the overlord clause and has no legal effect. "If the parents say that the child can't continue to receive the service, the early education institution has the right to deduct the fee when it refunds the fee if it can prove that the institution has incurred losses and the actual amount. In addition, early education institutions have no right to set any obstacles to refund fees, or one party limits fees and other non-refundable fees. It is suggested that consumers who have signed such contracts should be brave in defending their rights when encountering related problems. Many operators are well aware of such legal restrictions, but often after disputes, consumers are too lazy to defend their rights for the sake of time and energy, so such overlord clauses exist for a long time.

Legal basis: People's Republic of China (PRC) Consumer Protection Law.

Article 7 Consumers have the right to protect personal and property safety when purchasing and using commodities and receiving services. Consumers have the right to demand that the goods and services provided by business operators meet the requirements of protecting personal and property safety.

Article 8 Consumers have the right to know the real situation of the commodities they buy or use or the services they receive. Consumers have the right to require business operators to provide prices, places of origin, producers, uses, performance, specifications, grades, main ingredients, production dates, expiration dates, inspection certificates, instructions for use, after-sales services or the contents, specifications and expenses of services, etc. according to different conditions of goods or services.