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

The Mainichi Shimbun has an article looking back on METI's role in Nova's failure. Here's a translation of the article.

Nova's recklessness given the seal of approval by METI in '02

Lack of awareness let decision stand for 5 years

An Otsu man who sued English conversation school Nova recalls his frustration over the company's bankruptcy.

He signed up for lessons with Nova 5 years ago but decided to cancel his contract in June 2006 after he had problems booking lessons. He had paid about ¥360,000 for lessons but ended up suing after Nova refunded him a mere ¥30,000 when he figured he was owed closer to ¥160,000. In August, the Otsu Small Claims Court ordered Nova to pay the man ¥160,000, but Nova appealed. When the company filed for bankruptcy in November, all hope in ever seeing the money was lost.

Nova's lesson system was based on points--the more points one purchased, the cheaper the lessons-- but when a contract was canceled, the refund was calculated at a higher-per-lesson price and was based on the used lessons only, resulting in small refunds. Points also expired after a set time period.

The Specified Commercial Transactions Law protects consumers when they end contracts and regulates the prices businesses can charge for long-term services such as English conversation lessons where contract periods are blurry.

Complaints about Nova date back more than 10 years. Consumer affairs centers and other organizations raised these complaints with METI citing suspicions that the way conducted business and handled contract cancellations violated the Specified Commercial Transactions Law.

In 2002, however, METI issued a memo to prefectural governments saying that Nova's business "cannot be said to be unreasonable" and gave its seal of approval to discounts for volume sales and calculating refunds at a different price.

The tide turned in April 2007 after a Supreme Court decision ordered Nova to pay a former student in Tokyo nearly ¥300,000 saying that Nova's practices restricted the student's right to cancel his contract. METI then sanctioned Nova in June, partially suspending its business for 6 months for violating the Specified Commercial Transactions Law, 5 years after issuing its memo. But the damage had already been done.

That same month, the Japan Fair Trade Commission investigated Nova on suspicion of violating the law on representing promotional offers over the way it deducted sign-up fees from refunds while its promotions waived the fees. The investigation was shelved after Nova claimed that it explained everything to consumers when they signed up.

Says Rie Kuroki, a lawyer with the Nova taisaku Osaka bengo dan class action suit,"Accepting Nova's explanation is beyond the bounds of a ministry that is supposed to foster business. It ignore the consumers' viewpoint."

METI replied that (refund) calculations are done using the selling price, but denied that the price was excessively high and concluded that it did not restrict the ability of consumers to exercise their right to cancel their contracts. It also admitted that its awareness was lacking.

Although several administrative bodies were aware of the problem, they were unable to stop Nova, and more than 300,000 consumers ultimately suffered.

A unified consumer policy

Prime minister Yasuo Fukuda focused on consumer protection in a policy speech in January. With consumer policy suffering from compartmentalization due to authority being distributed among METI, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the prime minister is seeking to establish a Council for Promoting Consumer Policy. An LDP committee on consumer issues studying the formation of a new organization issued a final report in March favoring the creation of a Consumer Agency. The DJP argued for a consumer ombudsman to directly deal with consumer claims.

Original article

消費者行政の現場で：／中　ＮＯＶＡ暴走を後押し　０２年、経産省が「お墨付き」

◇判断覆すまで５年「認識甘かった」

「まさか倒産とは……」。英会話学校・ＮＯＶＡを訴えた大津市内の公務員の男性（２８）は悔しさをにじませる。

ＮＯＶＡとの契約は５年前。授業の予約が入らず、０６年６月に解約を決意した。支払総額は約３６万円。計算では１６万円程度が戻るはずだったが、ＮＯＶＡが示した返金額は３万円余。納得がいかず、提訴に踏み切った。

大津簡裁は昨年８月、男性の請求通り１６万円余の支払いを命じる判決を出した。だがＮＯＶＡが控訴、１１月に破産手続きに入り返金は絶望的になった。

ＮＯＶＡの受講システムは契約時にポイントを買うのが特徴。「多く買うほど割安」と大量に売り込むが、解約時に割引の少ない単価で使用済み分を計算するため、返金額が少なくなる。一定期間が過ぎると無効になるポイントもあった。

特定商取引法（特商法）は、語学教室など契約期間が長期で効果などが分かりにくいサービスに対し、消費者の中途解約権を保障し、業者が請求できる金額を規制している。

ＮＯＶＡへの苦情は１０年以上前からあった。ＮＯＶＡのシステムは事実上、中途解約権を侵害しているとして、各地の消費生活センターなどから「特商法違反では」との疑問が経済産業省に投げかけられていた。

ところが、経産省が０２年に出した判断は「合理性が認められないとはいえない」（都道府県への事務連絡文書）。「数量に従う割引はよくある。定期券の払い戻しも割引の少ない単価で計算する」とのＮＯＶＡの説明を認めたもので、これがお墨付きになった。

流れを変えたのが０７年４月の最高裁判決。東京都内の元受講生が解約金約３０万円の返還を求めたもので、「ＮＯＶＡの規定は受講生の解約権行使を制限する」と請求通りの支払いを命じた。経産省は６月にＮＯＶＡを特商法違反で一部業務停止処分にしたが、０２年文書から５年。既に被害は拡大していた。

ＮＯＶＡに対しては、公正取引委員会も０６年、「入学金無料」としながら解約時に入学金の一部を差し引き返金を少なくしているのが景品表示法違反の疑いがあると調査した。だが「契約時に説明している」との説明に、処分を見送った。

ＮＯＶＡ被害対策大阪弁護団の黒木理恵弁護士は「経産省がＮＯＶＡの言い分を受け入れたのは、産業を育成する省庁の限界。消費者の視点が欠けている」と批判する。

経産省は「精算は売価でするのが原則だが、過度に高いともいえず、消費者の中途解約権を実質的に制限しないと判断した。認識が甘いとの批判は甘んじて受けざるを得ない」と説明する。

複数の行政機関が気づきながら、ＮＯＶＡの暴走を止められず、被害者数は３０万人に上るといわれる。

◇消費者行政の一元化

消費者重視を打ち出す福田康夫首相が１月の施政方針演説に方針を盛り込んだ。消費者行政は経産省、厚生労働省、農林水産省などに権限が分散し、縦割りの弊害が指摘されており、首相は「消費者行政推進会議」を発足させ検討を進める。新たな組織をめぐっては、自民党の消費者問題調査会が３月、「消費者庁創設」などを盛り込んだ最終報告をまとめた。民主党は消費者の申し立てを直接受ける「消費者オンブズマン」を主張する。