Selling a package of future services through chat messages doesn't avoid the consumer protection rules that apply to a written contract. In Yue Cao v. 1440607 B.C. Ltd., 2026 BCCRT 1485, the Civil Resolution Tribunal ordered a skincare studio to return $1,885 for treatment sessions the customer never used. The decisive problem was missing statutory information, not simply that the customer had changed her mind.
Yue Cao asked about a promotional treatment package over WeChat in December 2024. She selected an option and paid the entire $1,885 by electronic transfer. The studio, operating as Fairy Beauty Medi Studio, had no other formal contract. In March 2025 Cao asked for a refund because she expected to return to her home country without booking any sessions. The business said the package was nonrefundable, suggested transferring it, and later offered $1,300 plus store credit. It asserted that her cancellation had caused staffing and communication costs, but produced no evidence of the alleged loss.
The Tribunal applied British Columbia's Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act even though Cao hadn't expressly advanced a statutory argument. The prepaid sessions were a future performance contract under section 17 because services would be provided after payment. Section 18.2 required information including the supply date, the date by which services would be completed, policies governing cancellation and refunds, and the terms applying after a promotional period. The WeChat messages contained none of these required terms. Under section 18.4, Cao therefore had a statutory right to cancel within the applicable 1 year period. Her March request exercised that right.
The statute also permits a tribunal, under section 173.1, to preserve contractual obligations where letting the consumer cancel would otherwise be unjust. Here every treatment session remained unused. The studio hadn't shown specific costs or other prejudice sufficient to make cancellation unfair, so that discretion didn't prevent the full refund. The Tribunal considered an earlier decision about unused prepaid recreation services persuasive, but relied on the facts and legislation before it.
The studio was ordered to pay $1,885 plus $150 in Tribunal fees, a total of $2,035 within 21 days. Cao had expressly waived prejudgment interest, and a separate claim for $21 in Provincial Court filing costs fell outside the Tribunal's power to reimburse expenses from another proceeding. The decision isn't a general right to cancel any service package for any reason. It shows that small businesses taking payments for services delivered later should give customers all mandatory contract information when the agreement is formed, including when the entire negotiation happens through messaging.