How to better protect the rights and interests of college student tutors who are facing new problems such as high information fees, difficulty in refunding fees, and difficulty in protecting their rights in case of disputes when online platforms and WeChat groups form mainstream tutoring intermediary channels? Currently, there is a new form of "platform acceptance" for part-time tutoring for college students. However, the practice of prepaying high information fees, strict refund rules, and platforms quickly "clearing responsibility" after disputes have put many part-time students in a passive position when their rights are damaged. Experts believe that building a healthy home tutoring market ecosystem requires joint efforts from multiple aspects such as consolidating platform responsibilities and issuing operational guidelines. Just 5 minutes after payment, Shen Jiangyue (pseudonym) regretted it. In October 2025, this senior student from a university in Hebei Province came across a job posting on a tutoring agency platform's mini program. She clicked to accept the order and paid 576 yuan for the information fee. Later, she noticed that the tutoring task required daily classes, and her own schedule couldn't match. She immediately contacted customer service to apply for cancellation of resume submission and refund, but the other party refused on the grounds of "resume has been pushed" and "platform submission is also a service". After more than a month of repeated communication and complaints, she was able to recover this money. In recent years, with the rise of intermediary models such as online platforms and WeChat groups, the way for college students to find part-time tutoring has shifted from the traditional "parent teacher" direct connection to a new form of "platform matching and flexible order taking". Technology has brought convenient information collection, but it has also brought new issues of rights protection: high and prepaid "information fees" have become standard, and once disputes arise, the platforms or intermediaries providing information often quickly "disappear", leaving college students with nowhere to protect their rights. Disputes have arisen, and the platform has become "invisible". Some parents do not have enough time to tutor their children in learning, or lack appropriate ways and methods to explain problems. University student tutoring has become the choice of many parents. ”On January 2nd, Zhou Qing (pseudonym), a junior student from a university in Beijing, told reporters that her WeChat group "Beijing University City Part time Group" continued to post tutoring order information during the holiday. The group leader is the intermediary, and when posting information, clearly state the requirements and salary. If you're interested, just send your resume. It's very simple. ”Zhou Qing showed the reporter the "part-time tutoring group" of nearly 150 people he belongs to. She has joined more than 5 similar groups. More than 90% of the text in the group announcement revolves around "information fees". The rules are detailed and strict: classes are held on a weekly basis, and the information fee ranges from 60% to 150% of the weekly class fee; If paid monthly, a fee of 15% to 20% of monthly income will be charged; The information fee for online teaching is 1.3 times that of offline teaching. The refund terms are more restrictive, and can only be fully refunded if the parent has not taken the trial class, and a screen recording must be provided to prove that the parent has been blacklisted. In other cases, the refund will be deducted proportionally. Zhou Qing said that the intermediary explicitly requested to "prohibit mentioning information fees to parents", and the private tutors were relatively passive. The platform mini program used by Shen Jiangyue requires submission of ID card and student ID card for registration. "The post does not disclose the contact phone number, address, and other information of the parents. After receiving the order and making payment, there is a corresponding customer service representative to add WeChat and follow up on the docking situation." The intermediary has become the only gateway for information flow. For parents, this brings convenience in screening. However, Yan Qimeng, a partner at Shanghai Shunjing Law Firm, stated that many online tutoring platforms are essentially information intermediaries and often explicitly exclude employment relationships with teachers in their agreements. This means that once there is a dispute over salary or job content, the platform can "hide" and easily evade responsibility. Zhou Qing, who lacks clear and standardized compensation standards for paying over 200 yuan in information fees, has also encountered difficulties in refunding. After obtaining the contact information of the parents from the intermediary, Zhou Qing conducted an online trial lecture according to the agreed time. During the online trial teaching process, I did not have any communication with the students, and the parents interrupted me multiple times, questioning my teaching ability. After the last interruption, the parents closed the video and blocked Zhou Qing's WeChat. Zhou Qing, who failed the trial lecture, contacted an intermediary to request a refund, only to find out that there were two intermediaries involved in this process, one for teachers and the other for parents. During multiple rounds of coordination, the intermediary who was in contact with the parents had a bad attitude and refused to refund the fees. They even deleted my WeChat and the intermediary who was in contact with me refunded me 100 yuan in information fees. At this point, Zhou Qing realized that she did not have access to the identity information of the intermediary. "If the other party disappears directly, there is basically no way to seek help. Reporters found through searches on social media and online complaint platforms that many private tutors have reported that intermediaries such as online platforms, teaching institutions, and educational technology companies often charge high information fees at once or per class based on their vast amount of private tutoring information. However, there are many barriers to entry when it comes to requesting refunds for information fees, and there is little done to help safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of private tutors, or to engage in behaviors that infringe upon their rights and interests. When college students' private tutoring encounters disputes and attempts to protect their rights, the first thing they face is the "ambiguous zone" in legal characterization. Under the current institutional framework, the relationship between college students' tutoring and online platforms or institutions generally does not constitute a legal labor relationship, but is usually recognized as an intermediary legal relationship centered on information matching services. ”Associate Professor Ban Xiaohui from the Law School of Wuhan University analyzed that this means that labor legal protections such as salary standards, working hours, and rest rights are difficult to cover the college student tutoring group, and disputes are usually classified as ordinary civil contract disputes. Yan Qimeng stated that currently, tutoring work is upgrading from "supervising and accompanying students" to undertaking many systematic "alternative teaching" tasks. Professional requirements and labor intensity have increased, but there is a lack of clear regulations on remuneration standards and rights protection. During her recent home tutoring experience, Shen Jiangyue experienced a situation where her teaching time was "wiped out" and she had to take on additional tasks such as picking up and dropping off children and correcting homework without any compensation. Can the current regulation effectively address the issue of building a healthy tutoring market ecosystem for a model that is disguised as "information matching" but actually deeply involved in transactions and charges high fees? Shen Jiangyue filed a complaint with the local market supervision department by checking the company's registration information, and after more than a month of difficulties, she was able to retrieve her refund. This is a post event, case by case remedy with high costs and limited effectiveness in safeguarding rights. ”Ban Xiaohui believes that for market regulatory authorities, the focus is on regulating fees and transaction order. Operational guidelines can be developed for online platforms or institutions and other tutoring intermediaries to strengthen their rule making and performance guarantee responsibilities. For example, limiting high, prepaid information fees or intermediary fees, requiring fees to match actual services; Standardize refund rules and clarify bottom line standards such as "refunds should be made if no actual performance is made" and "invalid unfair terms"; Strengthen the supervision of standard contracts and include clauses such as unreasonable exemption, unilateral changes, and non refundable fees in the scope of key review. It is worth noting that the Interim Measures for Administrative Penalties for Off campus Training have been implemented in 2023. Ban Xiaohui pointed out that if a platform or intermediary organizes and operates businesses with training attributes under the name of "tutoring matching", especially subject based training, unified pricing and fees, and commission management for primary and secondary school students, it may be identified as a disguised off campus training institution and thus included in the scope of supervision and punishment under this measure. Market regulatory authorities can conduct sufficient research, independently or jointly with industry organizations, to launch standardized electronic labor contracts with clear rights and responsibilities, guide both parties to use them, and reduce the 'identification cost' and signing risk of college students. ”Yan Qimeng suggests that college students must verify the qualifications of the platform, sign a written agreement, carefully review the terms, focus on job content, payment methods, breach of contract responsibilities, etc., and keep evidence such as chat records, transfer vouchers, and work process records. In terms of credit mechanism construction, Ban Xiaohui believes that multi-party peer evaluation should be promoted instead of one-way evaluation. Parents should be allowed to evaluate the quality of tutoring, and college students should also be allowed to evaluate their parents' compliance behavior and the implementation of platform rules. External supervision or public indicators should also be introduced for the platform's own charging, refund, and dispute resolution to prevent the credit mechanism from becoming a one-way constraint tool. (New Society)