After 300 “Correction” Sessions, Child’s Myopia Worsened: Court Orders Triple Refund for Fraud

At a time when adolescent myopia is a major concern, various vision correction services have emerged. Some businesses attract parents with claims like “vision is reversible” and “you can remove your glasses.”

Can myopia truly be cured through non-medical training? What legal liability do businesses face for fraudulent advertising and false promises?

The Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court (hereinafter “Beijing Third Intermediate Court”) recently concluded a fraud dispute over vision correction services, ruling that a vision correction institution committed fraud. The court ordered the business to refund all service fees and pay triple punitive damages.

The case shows that Ms. Jia, worried about her child’s myopia, was deeply attracted by a company’s promotional materials. The company claimed: “Based on different visual characteristics, we use cutting-edge training methods to prevent, control, and reverse vision problems. It not only improves vision but also enhances overall visual function, making it possible to reduce prescription and remove glasses.” It also listed so-called success stories like “A child with 550-degree myopia improved to 400 degrees after 11 sessions,” which were highly misleading.

Before receiving the correction services, Ms. Jia’s child had 125 degrees of myopia in the left eye and normal vision in the right eye. Starting in 2022, she signed her child up for the company’s vision correction services, paying a total of 26,000 yuan. Over three years, the child underwent nearly 300 correction sessions. “With the heavy academic pressure on children, parents worry about vision health and are eager to find ways to improve it. When we saw the promise of ‘reducing prescription,’ we were willing to try,” she said.

However, the actual outcome after three years of correction training was the opposite of the claims. In 2025, a school vision test showed that Ms. Jia’s child’s left eye myopia had risen to 400 degrees, and the right eye had developed 100 degrees of myopia. A re-examination at a regular hospital confirmed the results.

Ms. Jia pointed out that even during the “correction” period, she noticed her child’s prescription increasing. Yet the company still discouraged her, saying “If you notice vision decline, don’t rush to get glasses; pure physical training can protect the eyes.” Even after receiving authoritative test results, the business argued that “the child’s eyes are in a blurry period, and the test is inaccurate,” refusing to admit the service was ineffective.

After failed communication, Ms. Jia sued the company, demanding a refund of all service fees (26,000 yuan) and triple compensation (78,000 yuan) for fraudulent advertising and delayed treatment that harmed her child’s vision.

The company argued that it had repeatedly informed Ms. Jia through parent class sessions in WeChat groups that physical training does not change the shape of the eyeball or alter refractive power, and therefore it had not engaged in false advertising.

After trial, the first-instance court found that the company’s actions constituted fraud and supported Ms. Jia’s claim for a full refund and triple punitive damages. The company appealed, claiming it had not engaged in false advertising. The Beijing Third Intermediate Court held that the first-instance judgment was factually clear and legally correct, and thus dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling.

The judge explained that, first, the company’s false advertising contradicted scientific knowledge and it failed to fulfill its duty of scientific disclosure. Evidence showed that the company used terms such as “restore,” “reduce prescription,” “improve vision,” and “remove glasses” in its advertising. Given the current state of medical technology, myopia cannot be cured. Although the company claimed its service aimed to improve “unaided visual acuity” rather than change “refractive power,” ordinary consumers cannot clearly distinguish between “visual effect” and “refractive error,” and the company did not clearly inform Ms. Jia of the differences and relevant scientific basis.

Second, the business’s false advertising was sufficient to mislead the consumer into entering into a contract, constituting fraud. For Ms. Jia, regardless of whether the company explained the treatment principles, phrases like “reduce prescription,” “improve vision,” and “remove glasses” are prohibited misleading statements. They were sufficient to mislead Ms. Jia, causing her to have a mistaken understanding of the services provided, thereby establishing a service contract relationship.

Furthermore, the services provided by the company not only failed to improve vision but also delayed proper diagnosis and treatment for the child. After nearly 300 correction training sessions with the company, Ms. Jia’s child’s myopia had worsened rather than improved. The company’s promotional statements such as “If you notice your child’s vision declining, do not get glasses first” and “Do not blindly get glasses” could also delay myopic patients from seeking treatment at regular medical institutions. In conclusion, the Beijing Third Intermediate Court legally determined that the company’s actions constituted consumer fraud.

Currently, the demand for myopia prevention and control among children and adolescents is strong. Some institutions exploit parents’ anxiety, using false claims like “cure myopia” and “reverse prescription” to profit. This not only infringes on consumers’ property rights but may also delay children’s proper vision treatment, harming their vision health.

The judge stated that any non-medical vision institution promoting statements such as “If you notice vision decline, don’t get glasses first; pure physical training can cure, reverse, and remove glasses” are making false or misleading claims. If businesses induce consumers to transact with false promises, they will be found liable for fraud and face punitive damages of triple the amount paid.

The judge also reminded consumers to remain rational when facing vision correction services, not to let concern cloud judgment. They should choose regular medical institutions for examination and intervention, retain promotional materials, payment receipts, service records, and other evidence, and promptly assert their rights when encountering false advertising. At the same time, vision correction service providers must adhere to scientific principles and integrity, strictly refrain from exaggerated and false advertising, operate compliantly, and not seek profits at the expense of consumers’ health.