Consumer contract clause denying refunds after classes start is abusive if it ignores provider's actual costs.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against a ruling declaring specific clauses in a consumer education contract abusive. The provider argued that clauses preventing refunds after classes began and requiring full semester payment violated consumer protection laws, while the court found the clauses disproportionate to the provider's actual costs and risks. Consequently, the court held that such terms are abusive because they fail to reflect the economic reality of the educational service provided.