Let's Japan.org Debunking Eikaiwa and Ramblings in Japan

The Nikkei published an interesting article last week [free registration required] on the legal battle leading up to the Supreme Court decision that helped push NOVA into oblivion. I had no idea that one man took on NOVA and changed things. Ever since the NOVA debacle, there has been a fair amount of talk about setting up a new Agency for Consumer Affairs. Reporting in the Japanese press invariably cites NOVA's bankruptcy as an example of why a consumer protection agency is needed.

It has always puzzled me why G.communication chose to keep the NOVA brand. Not only has NOVA's failure created a mountain of ill will toward the company, it has quickly become the stereotypical example of a consumer fraud. It's the same reason why nobody calls their new company ENRON and thinks they will succeed.

The Supreme Court and the decision against NOVA

The lawsuits that hinted at the requirements for an Agency for Consumer Affairs

They won't cancel my contract.

This was the complaint brought to lawyer Sugiura Yukihiko at his downtown office by a women who belonged to the same tennis school as him. The tennis school was on the roof and below was a NOVA school where she took English lessons to help her improve her English so she enjoy traveling abroad.

She was unable to reserve a lesson no matter how many times she tried. Frustrated, she went to the school to cancel her contract and was surprised at the response she received.

In that case you'll never be able to speak English.

Bear with it a little longer.

You're a quitter.

She was told it would take a few hours to cancel the contract. Just as NOVA hung on to a customer, they pressured her to reconsider.

At the time, one had to purchase points up front and make reservations for lessons. The price of a point ranged from 1200 yen to 3800 yen, more than three times the lowest price. The more points one bought, the cheaper the lessons were.

Although the price of a lesson was discounted, from NOVA's perspective, having customers purchase a lot of points meant higher revenues. To that end, NOVA aggressively solicited customers who had no idea of how many points they would use in the future, and told them that they would lose money unless they purchased a lot of points.

As Sugiura explains, she went with a friend to NOVA to pick up a pamphlet, and they were split up and placed in separate booths, and told that if they were to begin taking lessons it would take long hours of study. This approach prevented the two from sharing information without providing any specific details about new contracts or otherwise.

He describes that back then, NOVA had a policy that deemed unused points as being expired after a certain period of time had elapsed. However, the point balance was recorded on a magnetic strip like a credit card and a student had to go to NOVA and ask about his balance. Students also had to visit or phone NOVA to inquire about lesson reservations. When one's points were close to expiring, students were told there was a campaign, and then pressured to renew their contracts at a discount. When the woman complained about not being able to reserve a lesson, she was told, “Nobody else has that problem” or “You're just being selfish,” and treated as if she was trying to rip off NOVA.

“We're not paying a single yen”

When the woman tried to cancel her contract, her refund was calculated based on her used lessons only using a higher price-per-lesson than what she originally paid for. Her refund was the price of her used lessons calculated at the higher rate, less cancellation fees and other surcharges. In other words, students were lured in by low prices only to find out that in reality it was difficult to quit.

When she first came to Sugiura for advice, he thought he was going to work something out with NOVA and negotiate a higher refund. However, the staff member was adamant that NOVA would not give up a single yen. Even when he hinted that this could go to court, NOVA didn't take the hint seriously and brushed it off. At stake was only a few hundred thousand yen, and it was clear that court expenses would be more than any refund.

When he asked for information as to why the refund was so small, the staff member stubbornly insisted that the rules forbade her from divulging anything. In addition to NOVA's one-sided explanation of the refund, the staff member asked that the student sign a letter stating that she would not make any further complaints in the future. Sugiura felt that the intent was to sweep everything under the carpet without a trace in the event this turned into contract issue. With this kind of treatment, it was not difficult for Sugiura to imagine a lot of students having no choice but to yield. The reality was that when he went to consult with a consumer affairs center, they had been inundated with complaints about canceling contracts from all across the country.

Insisting on a ruling

While Sugiura was researching ways to deal with the problem, he examined the contract and noticed that it mentioned the Specified Commercial Transactions Law. Since he specialized in corporate law, he had no idea that the Specified Commercial Transactions Law existed. At the bar association library he picked up a copy of the Specified Commercial Transactions Law Handbook, written by a group of lawyers involved in drafting the bill for the law.

According to the handbook, he found that there were problems with NOVA's policy of deeming unused points as used. Furthermore, the handbook contained a note criticizing the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry's (METI) interpretation of the law in stating that there were circumstances where NOVA's method of calculating refunds was legitimate.

Despite the flood of complaints at consumer affairs centers, only a single lawsuit had been filed. “I thought it was strange,” says Sugiura, who figured that METI's interpretation of the law was behind NOVA's tough stance.

“I thought that my only choice was to reveal this hidden fact for the record no matter what the cost.” In order to do that, he decided that he would refuse to settle and insist on a ruling from the court.

Winning by losing

Sugiura first made his case in October 2003 at the Tokyo District Court where he asked for the return of approximately 500, 000 yen in unused points and another 460,000 in damages under the Specified Commercial Transactions Law.

NOVA had offered the woman he was representing a refund of approximately 260,000 yen. But as the trail began, NOVA quickly folded and said it would refund approximately 500,000 yen in unused points plus interest. In paying the money demanded, it appeared that NOVA's aim was to quickly settle and and end the lawsuit.

Sugiura, however, refused to settle and asked the court for a decision. His strategy yielded the desired result. In July 2004, the Tokyo District Court ruled that NOVA's policy on unused points violated the Specified Commercial Transactions Law.

During the case, however, NOVA said that it had already deposited the money with the plaintiff. Because of this, the court ruled that the matter of the refund has been settled and the plaintiff's demands were subsequently rejected. Although Sugiura technically lost the case, it was a victory in that the court ruled that NOVA's policy on unused points was illegal.

Sugiura held a press conference to announce the decision. The newspapers reported that NOVA refunded a former student as requested, while some reports said that NOVA lost the court case. In a panic, NOVA tried to downplay the ruling by stating that some newspapers were erroneous in their reporting, fearful that the ruling would spark a blaze of refunds from among its nearly 480,000 students.

Sugiura was furious with NOVA's response and decided to file a second lawsuit. This time he represented a friend of the woman from the first case, and demanded that approximately 310,000 be refunded. This time, he argued that when the contract was canceled, it was NOVA's practice to set the per-lesson-price of unused points higher than the original purchase price, and that this resulted in smaller-than-expected refunds.

NOVA formed a defense team made up of lawyers from a renowned law firm. While he had the assistance of the lawyers who wrote the Specified Commercial Transactions Law Handbook, Sugiura was essentially on his own. In addition to his victory at the District Court, the Tokyo High Court also ruled in his favor in July 2005.

NOVA had argued that it was necessary to be fair to students who purchased small amounts of points and those who purchased a lot, and that the plaintiff was trying to invalidate its discount system. The court noted this did not invalidate its discount system as there were other schools offering discounts who calculated refunds at the same price the lessons were purchased at, and concluded that NOVA's arguments were groundless. NOVA disagreed and launched an appeal.

The ruling heard around the Internet

The High Court's decision received virtually no coverage in the media. Sugiura had assumed that the decision would be reported but it turned out not to be the case. At a loss for what to do, he tried searching the Internet and found an entry on a personal blog that read, “I only knew that NOVA's arguments were groundless.”

He then decided to write about the ruling. He created a website and posted the ruling on it. There was a torrent of responses from blogs. The website was like a refuge for former students. It was NOVA's worst nightmare.

NOVA was a late-comer to the world of English conversation, but it attracted students with its deep discounts. It was apparently steadfast in its refusal to join the industry association made up of foreign language schools. Joining meant having to follow their rules, and NOVA felt its business methods would not be permitted. Still, NOVA had become the industry leader and declared that its methods were the standard.

In an article in the March 5, 2007 issue of the Nikkei Business in which former NOVA president, Nozomu Sahashi, was interviewed, he spoke of how the Specified Commercial Transactions Law contained nothing specific pertaining to the way NOVA calculated refunds, and that he and METI had held discussions in the past and that clear rules had been drawn up. It was also reported that he went with a Diet member to get METI's seal of approval and made appeals to local governments and authorities. But that was because the local authorities decided to launch an investigation after hearing about all of the consumer complaints.

Calculating returns

The ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in April 2007 was straightforward. Citing the Specified Commercial Transactions Law, the ruling stated that NOVA's method of calculating refunds restricted the ability of customers to cancel contracts and that it was reasonable to settle refunds using the original purchase price.

During the trial, NOVA justified itself by citing the discount systems for long-term contracts used for NHK TV fees and JR rail passes. But according to Masahiro Saito, one of the authors who wrote the Specified Commercial Transactions Law Handbook, NOVA and NHK are two entirely different things because contracts by NHK and JR are exempt from the Specified Commercial Transactions Law since it falls beyond the scope of the Civil Code.

The focus of the Specified Commercial Transactions Law is on businesses where consumer trouble is problematic. The law is currently limited to six categories: esthetic salons, foreign language schools, cram schools, private dispatch tutors, marriage information services, and computer schools. These businesses are given broad treatment under the law that requires special ordinances. Saito doesn't believe that the Supreme Court's ruling on NOVA will affect other types of businesses.

Lessons for the Agency for Consumer Affairs

A single lawyer fought NOVA and the Supreme Court ruled its business model invalid. According to Sugiura, until the case reached the Supreme Court, many saw it as selfish consumers saying irresponsible things. The truth was that while consumers were being solicited with deep discounts they were unable to take lessons.

“I think NOVA's methods were out of step with the times,” said Sugiura looking back. “Instead of bending the rules, it's vital for businesses to earn the trust of customers. Nova's complacency is a classic example of how not to survive,” Saito added.

The NOVA affair is having a major impact on the debate to establish the framework for an Agency for Consumer Affairs. In particular, despite the numerous complaints from consumers about canceling their contracts, since METI had given NOVA its seal of approval, the number of victims had swelled by the time the Supreme Court handed down its ruling and effected a change in policy.

Despite the fact that NOVA explanation of “reservations can be made anytime” didn't match with reality and that its solicitations violated the law, METI's order to suspend part of NOVA's business came two months after the Supreme Court's decision. Had the government responded faster to consumer complaints, they may have been able to stop the contract disputes from escalating. NOVA, too, may have been persuaded into changing course before going bankrupt.

After NOVA went bankrupt, legal counsel teams for the students have been formed across the country. Aside from a few cases, Sugiura, however, has chosen not to get involved with them. He confides, “Speed is decisive in consumer issues.” He adds that with businesses like NOVA that go bankrupt, there's a chance of not being able reclaim all of the money owed. If the business suddenly changes the agreement while a legal counsel is being put together, they may succeed in undermining the case against them.

Sugiura adds that there is a need for a system to quickly spread information to prevent problems from growing with the public using the Internet and other means as a way of monitoring. For the Agency of Consumer Affairs to work, it needs to act like the British Office of Fair Trading where it must issue a report within 90 days of receiving a complaint. There are many lessons to be learned.

Original article

旧NOVA商法を否定した最高裁

訴訟が示唆する消費者庁の必要条件

「なかなか解約をさせてくれない」

都内で法律事務所を構える杉浦幸彦弁護士に、こんな相談を持ちかけたのは、同じテニススクールに通うテニス仲間の女性だった。ビルの屋上にあるテニススクールの階下に英会話学校の旧NOVAがあり、その女性は海外旅行を楽しむ目的で英会話の受講を始めた。

ところが、何度申し込んでもすんなり受講の予約が取れない。業を煮やして中途解約しようと窓口に出向いたところ、担当者の対応に驚かされた。

「そういうことだから英語ができるようにならない」

「もうちょっと頑張りなさい」

「意気地がない」

解約の手続きに時間がかかるとも言われた。いったん捕まえた客は離さないとばかりに、執拗に継続を迫られたという。

当時のNOVAの受講契約は、あらかじめ購入したレッスンポイントをもとに受講を予約しなければならなかった。1ポイントの購入単価は、1200円から3800円まで3倍以上の開きがあった。一度に登録するポイントが多いほど、単価は下がる仕組みだった。

単価は割引されるものの、NOVAにしてみれば受講者にたくさんポイントを購入させた方が収益は増える。そのためか、将来ポイントをどれくらい使うか分からない受講者にも「多く買わないと損だ」と強く勧誘した。

2人で連れ立ってパンフレットをもらいに行っただけでも、1人ずつブースに分けて「まじめにやるなら長時間受講しないといけない」などと個別に勧誘していたと杉浦弁護士は言う。こうした勧誘方法でNOVAは、受講者同士で情報を共有させないようにしながら、契約規定など詳しい情報は知らせなかった。

当時のNOVAは、一定期間が経過するとポイントが使われたと見なす「みなし使用」の規定があった。しかし、自分のポイント残高はクレジットカード式の磁気カードに記録されていて、いくつポイントが残っているか窓口で聞かなければ分からない。いつ予約が可能かも、受付で聞いたり、電話で問い合わせなければならない。ポイントの有効期限が近づくと「キャンペーン中なので安くする」と更新を迫った。なかなか予約ができないと苦情を言うと「ほかの皆さんは、そんなことはありません」「あなただけが、わがまま言っても仕方がない」と、まるでクレーマー扱いされたという。

「解約の返金額は1円も譲らない」

中途解約しようとすると、契約時よりも高い単価で使用済みポイントの金額が計算された。こうして返金されるのは、高い単価で計算された使用済みポイント分と、解除手数料などを差し引いた残額だった。いわば見かけの安さで受講者を引き寄せながら、実態は中途解約をさせにくい仕組みだった。

相談を受けた杉浦弁護士は当初、NOVAの担当者に善処を求める程度のつもりで、解約の返金額を引き上げるように交渉した。しかし担当者は、1円も譲らないという強硬な態度を示した。弁護士という立場から訴訟を示唆しても、訴訟にはならないだろうと、あしらうように言われた。請求額はたかだか数十万円。訴訟費用の方が高くつくのは明白で、タカをくくられていたようだった。

どうして返金額が少なくなるのか詳しい情報を求めても、担当者は規則で一切出せないという一点張り。しかも一方的に伝えてきた金額に、今後は一切文句を言わないという趣旨の書面に一筆入れるよう求めてきた。解約トラブルが起きても、証拠を残さずに闇に葬ろうとする意図が感じられた。こうした対応に、解約した多くの元受講者が泣き寝入りしていただろうことは想像に難くなかった。実際に消費者相談の窓口に尋ねてみると、国民生活センターや全国の相談窓口に解約トラブルの苦情が殺到していた。

弁護士が判決にこだわったワケ

杉浦弁護士が対処法を探ろうと契約書をよく見ると、特定商取引法という記述があった。もともと杉浦弁護士は企業法務が専門だったため、「特定商取引法という法律があることすら知らなかった」という。弁護士会の図書館で手に取ったのが、特定商取引法の法案作成に関わった弁護士による「特定商取引法ハンドブック」だった。

ハンドブックによれば、使っていないポイントのみなし使用を定めたNOVAの規定は、問題があることが分かった。さらに、経済産業省がNOVAの精算方法について合理的な場合があるという法解釈を示しているとして、経産省の解釈を批判するような記述があった。

消費者相談の窓口には苦情が殺到していたものの、当時起こされていた訴訟は1件だけ。「これは、何かがおかしい」。杉浦弁護士は、強気な姿勢のNOVAの背後には経産省の法解釈があると推測した。

杉浦弁護士は、こうした隠れた事情を明らかにする目的から訴訟を起こし、「何としても社会に足跡を残すしかない」と考えたという。そのためには、裁判の途中で決して和解に応じずに、裁判所の判決をもらう必要があった。

請求棄却で実質勝訴

杉浦弁護士が初めて提訴したのは2003年10月。特定商取引法に基づいて未使用ポイントなど約50万円の返還請求に加えて、慰謝料を含め96万円を請求する訴訟を東京地方裁判所に起こした。

その依頼者の女性の場合、当初NOVAが提示した解約の返金額は約26万円だった。ところが裁判が始まると、NOVAはあっさりと未使用ポイントと利息分の約50万円を返すと言い出した。相手の言い分通りの解約金を払うことで、さっさと和解をして訴訟を終わらせるのが狙いのようだった。

しかし杉浦弁護士は受け取りを拒否し、判決をもらうことにこだわった。その戦略は功を奏した。東京地裁は2004年7月、NOVAのみなし使用規定は、特定商取引法に違反するという判断を下したのだ。

ただ、訴訟の中でNOVAは、既に原告の主張通りの解約金を供託していた。このため判決は、解約金は弁済されたとして、原告の請求は棄却した。こうして形式上は原告側の敗訴判決であるものの、みなし使用は違反という判断を勝ち取ったことになり、原告側の実質勝訴だった。

杉浦弁護士は、この判決を公にしようと記者会見を開いた。NOVAが元受講生の請求通りに返金したことが新聞記事になり、一部ではNOVAが敗訴したと伝えられた。慌てたNOVAは適時開示情報で、「一部の新聞に誤解を招くような記事が掲載された」と火消しに躍起になった。約48万人とされる受講者の間に、解約金の返還請求が飛び火するのを恐れたようだ。

こうしたNOVAの対応に怒りが収まらなかった杉浦弁護士は、第2弾の訴訟に踏み切った。今度は、最初の依頼者の友人を原告として、約31万円の解約金返還を求める訴訟に持ち込んだ。争点は、中途解約すると使用済みポイントが契約時よりも高い単価で精算されてしまい、解約の返金額が少なくなるというNOVAの手法だった。

被告のNOVA側は、有名事務所の弁護士を揃えて弁護団を結成。対する原告は、先に紹介した「特定商取引法ハンドブック」の著者の弁護士らが加勢したものの、基本的に代理人は杉浦弁護士1人だった。結果は、地裁で原告が勝ち、2005年7月に東京高等裁判所でも勝訴した。

NOVAは裁判で、少しのポイントを購入した受講生と、ポイントを多く購入して中途解約した受講生との公平を図る必要があると強調して、割引制度を否定するものだと主張した。しかし裁判所は、割引制度がありながら中途解約しても契約時と同じ単価で精算している同業者もあるので、割引制度の否定にはならないと指摘。NOVAの主張は筋違いだと断じた。NOVAは、これを不服として上告した。

ネットで広まった判決文

ところが、この高裁判決は、ほとんどマスコミが報道しなかった。杉浦弁護士は、いずれ判決が知られるようになるだろうと思っていたのに、どこも取り上げてくれない。途方に暮れてネットで「NOVA中途解約」と検索してみると、ある個人のブログに「NOVAの主張が通らなかったことしか分かりませんでした」と書かれていた。

そこで自ら判決を報告する書き込みをし、事務所のホームページを開設して判決文を公開した。するとブログには書き込みが殺到。元受講生の駆け込み寺のようになった。それは、NOVAが最も恐れていた事態だった。

英会話教室としては後発組で、大幅な値引きで受講生を集めていた旧NOVA。外国語会話教室で構成する業界団体には頑なに入ろうとしなかったという。業界団体に入ってしまうと、業界の自主ルールが適用されて、独自の手法が認められなくなる恐れがあったためと見られている。むしろ当時のNOVAは、業界トップの自らがスタンダードだと盛んに宣伝していた。

日経ビジネス2007年3月5日号の「敗軍の将、兵を語る」に登場した旧NOVAの猿橋望前社長は、中途解約の精算方法について特定商取引法に具体的な規定がないとして、「当社は以前から経済産業省など行政と話し合い、明確なルールを作ってきました」と語った。国会議員を引き連れて、経産省のお墨付きをもらっていると地方自治体にアピールしていたという報道もされた。地方自治体が、消費者の苦情を受けて調査に乗り出そうとしていたからだ。

中途解約の精算は契約時の単価で

2007年4月、最高裁が示した判断は単純明快だった。特定商取引法に照らして、NOVAの清算方法は顧客の解約の自由を制限するもので、中途解約は契約時の単価で清算するのが相当だとする判断を示した。

訴訟でNOVAは、NHKのテレビ受信料やJRの定期券などの長期契約の割引制度を例に持ち出して、正当性を主張した。しかし「特定商取引法ハンドブック」の著者の1人で、消費者法に詳しい齋藤雅弘弁護士によると、民法の例外規定である特定商取引法は、NHKやJRの契約内容を対象にしていないので、同じ土俵で議論できるものではない。

特定商取引法の対象は、いわゆる消費者トラブルが多くなりがちな業種に絞られている。現在はエステサロンや外国語会話教室、学習塾、家庭教師派遣、結婚情報サービス、パソコン教室の6業種に限られる。対象業種は法律で大まかな考え方が定められ、しかも政令で指定しなければならない。齋藤弁護士は、旧NOVAへの最高裁判決が、ほかの業種に影響を与えることはまずないと指摘する。

「消費者庁」への教訓

たった1人の弁護士が奮闘し、いわば最高裁に独自のビジネスモデルを否定された格好の旧NOVA。杉浦弁護士によると、最高裁の判決までは、どちらかといえば身勝手な消費者がいい加減なことを言っているというような批判的な見方が多かったという。しかし実態は大幅な割引で勧誘しながら、なかなか受講できなかった。

「NOVAの手法は、時代を見誤っていたと思う」と杉浦弁護士は振り返る。齋藤弁護士も「ルールを僭脱するのではなく、ルールを守ることで顧客の信頼を得ることが企業にとって不可欠。独り善がりでは、最終的に生き残れなってしまうという典型例」と言う。

NOVA事件は、議論が進む「消費者庁」設置構想に大きな影響を与えている。とりわけ解約時の消費者の苦情が多かったにもかかわらず、経産省がお墨付きを与えていたため、最高裁で敗訴が確定して方針転換するまで被害が膨らんでしまったからだ。

経産省は、最高裁判決から2カ月後に、受講予約が取りにくいのに「いつでも予約を入れられる」と事実と異なる説明で勧誘する違反行為があったとして一部業務停止命令を出した。もし行政がいち早く消費者の苦情に対応していれば、解約トラブルの拡大は食い止められたかもしれない。NOVAも経営破綻に至る前に、方針転換を促されていたかもしれないと見られている。

旧NOVAが経営破綻した後、各地に被害弁護団が組織された。しかし杉浦弁護士は、こうした弁護団とは一部を除きほとんど関わりがない。杉浦弁護士は「消費者問題はスピードが勝負」と語る。旧NOVAのように業者が経営破綻してしまうと、返ってくるお金は少なくなる可能性がある。弁護団を組織している間に、業者側が突然約款を変えたりすれば、うやむやにされてしまう恐れもあった。

むしろネットなどで国民に監視させて、トラブルの拡大を防ぐ情報が一気に広まる仕組みが必要だと杉浦弁護士は言う。消費者庁が機能するためには、英国の公正取引庁（OFT）のように、苦情の申し出があれば、90日以内に報告書を出さなければならないといった迅速さが必要という指摘もある。得られる教訓は多い。