Chairperson Yang pointed out that the proposed amendments on prepayment consumption carry significant impact, particularly the classification as "organised and serious offences." She noted that beauty services have strong service attributes and flexibility, with many daily operations differing from standardised goods. If the provisions are too mechanical and lack situational guidance, they would increase compliance burdens for SMEs without truly achieving consumer protection. After the meeting, Chairperson Yang immediately formed a cross-institutional task force to further discuss action plans with industry representatives, draft formal response documents for government submission, and continue pushing for provisions that better reflect industry realities.

Nelson Ip, who has run a small beauty studio for many years, spoke for grassroots salons. He stated that the amendments hit individual studios and small beauty salons hardest: compliance paperwork doubles, cash flow risks rise, and bank fee differences must be absorbed by the business – a heavy burden for already thin-margin operations. He worries that the final ordinance will not drive away true bad actors – they have ways to circumvent rules – but will instead cause honest, skill-based small shops to close, accelerating the "bad money drives out good" phenomenon and severely undermining the will of grassroots entrepreneurs.

Lawrance Wong highlighted a legal loophole often overlooked: the proposed 7-day cooling-off period is a one-size-fits-all absolute deadline, with no provisions for exceptional circumstances. He cited an example – if a consumer falls seriously ill after signing a contract and holds valid medical proof but misses the 7-day window, being denied a refund is clearly unreasonable. Worse, if a merchant strictly follows the ordinance and refuses a refund request from a seriously ill or disabled person, they may inadvertently violate the Disability Discrimination Ordinance – trapped between compliance and illegality. He strongly recommends adding exception clauses to provide reasonable flexibility for unforeseeable situations.

Joey Wong raised a core practical challenge: the definition of "joint services" under Clause 5.4 of the consultation document is too vague. After repeated review, it remains difficult to determine the legal boundary between "modifying service items" and "adjusting service content." In daily operations, changing treatment areas, adjusting equipment parameters, or upgrading product formulas based on skin conditions are common flexible adjustments. But under the current wording, no one can say for sure whether these count as regulated "joint service changes." Frontline staff are left confused, which may actually increase consumer disputes – contrary to the legislative intent. She called on the government to issue scenario-based implementation guidelines with clear examples to reduce execution chaos.

Pauly Tse proposed an optimised way to convey industry demands. She believes that rather than passively waiting for consultation results, the industry should proactively let the government hear more real frontline voices – but these voices must be constructive and well-structured to be taken seriously. She encouraged all beauty practitioners and salon owners to express their views through short videos, following a clear logical order: (1) state your identity, (2) explain the real pain points, (3) question specific clauses, (4) offer improvement suggestions, and (5) issue a collective call to action – tagging relevant industry associations. She stressed that the more constructive the expression, the more likely it will drive substantive government revisions.