Buying airline tickets on online platforms, but being unknowingly bundled with food delivery service packages; After booking a hotel online, it was suddenly cancelled and a "big price increase" was found when booking again; The platform's labeling of five-star graphics behind the name of a non five-star hotel misleads... Recently, the Beijing Internet Court released a typical case involving online cultural tourism consumption. It is reported that the cases accepted by the court cover various consumption scenarios of online cultural tourism, including travel, accommodation, performance tickets, tourism product bookings, etc. The top three categories in terms of the number of cases involved in consumer scenarios are air tickets, performance tickets, and online hotel bookings. In one of the cases, when Wang purchased a plane ticket on a ticket sales platform operated by a certain company, the platform displayed a ticket price of 280 yuan, including 70 yuan for construction and fuel costs, and an additional 40 yuan discount. In the end, he actually paid 310 yuan. However, after receiving the ticket information provided by the platform, Wang searched on the official software of the airline and found that the actual ticket price was 230 yuan, with a total of 300 yuan for aircraft construction and fuel costs of 70 yuan. What is the additional fee of 10 yuan? After investigation, the platform bundled a 10 yuan takeaway service package with the sale of airline tickets to Wang. Wang then filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the platform refund the airfare and provide triple compensation. The court believes that in this case, as a platform operator, a certain company has the ability and obligation to set prominent and clear prompts on the user's purchase interface, as well as whether to check the option of value-added services. However, the company did not clearly explain to Wang the composition and purpose of the payment amount, and Wang was unable to clearly understand the details of the expenses on the purchase interface, nor could he refuse to pay the additional fee of 10 yuan. The platform operator subjectively concealed the true situation, resulting in Wang paying a price higher than the original ticket price, and should bear punitive damages liability. Does it constitute fraud if the platform labels a five-star (★★★★★) graphic after the name of a non five-star hotel? Qiao booked two nights of accommodation in a certain hotel room on a platform operated by a certain company and paid the fees. In the booking page, a five-star graphic was marked after the name of a certain hotel, and Qiao believed that the graphic represented a five-star hotel. After verification, it was found that the hotel was not a five-star hotel. Qiao believes that the platform is suspected of fraud and demands a refund of accommodation fees and triple compensation. The court believes that hotel star ratings, as a criterion for determining hotel ratings, are in line with the general understanding of ordinary consumers. The defendant directly used the five-star graphic as promotional content for the hotel, and did not clearly label and explain the five-star graphic. Based on daily life experience, the company's behavior of labeling the five-star graphic after the hotel name on the platform involved in the case is enough to make consumers believe that the hotel involved is a five-star hotel evaluated by the cultural and tourism administrative department. This behavior constitutes fraud. The court supports Qiao's request for the company to pay three times the compensation. The reporter learned that from its establishment on September 9, 2018 to December 31, 2024, the Beijing Internet Court accepted 2052 online cultural tourism consumption cases, with a significant increase in the number of cases. The main reasons for the frequent occurrence of disputes are the lack of standardization in the self operated business of online cultural and tourism platforms, lax platform supervision, and inadequate governance. In addition, online cultural and tourism consumption often adopts standardized contracts, and the format terms pre drafted by operators do not comply with legal regulations, which contain unfair and unreasonable content and are prone to causing after-sales disputes. There are also individual operators who use information technology to bundle sales and temporarily raise prices, which infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. In order to properly resolve online cultural tourism consumption disputes, the Beijing Internet Court suggested that the platform fulfill its main responsibilities, improve the management mechanism, and operators operate in good faith and legally to improve the service level. Consumers should enhance their legal awareness and protect their rights rationally in accordance with the law. At the same time, explore the construction of a collaborative work mechanism to jointly ensure the healthy development of online cultural tourism. (New Society)