Should disputes arising from riding shared bicycles be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the shared bicycle operator is located or the people's court where the contract is performed? Let's take the dispute over the format and jurisdiction terms of shared bicycles as an example to answer these questions. Basic case: Chen scanned a QR code and rode a shared bicycle. When he arrived at a shared bicycle parking spot in Haidian District, Beijing, and was about to lock and return the bike, the platform prompted that he could not return the bike because he was not at the parking spot. Chen failed to lock and return the car properly after attempting, so he paid the dispatch fee and returned the car. Chen believes that he has parked his bicycle at the marked parking spot but failed to lock and return it properly, which constitutes a breach of contract by the bicycle operator for failing to provide normal return services. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit with the Haidian District People's Court in Beijing. The shared bicycle operator raised jurisdictional objections during the defense period, claiming that the shared bicycle service agreement stipulated jurisdictional clauses, and the people's court where the bicycle operator is located should be determined as the jurisdictional court based on this. Chen believes that the jurisdiction clause has a significant interest in consumers, and this clause is a standard clause. As the shared bicycle operator did not take reasonable measures to draw consumers' attention, this clause should be invalid. According to Article 31 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if an operator uses standard terms to enter into a jurisdiction agreement with a consumer and fails to draw the consumer's attention in a reasonable manner, and the consumer claims that the jurisdiction agreement is invalid, the people's court shall support it. In this case, the agreement involved is a pre drafted standard contract by one party. Although the agreement includes a jurisdiction clause, it is not specifically marked in the agreement to remind consumers to pay attention. The shared bicycle operator has also not provided evidence to prove that reasonable measures were taken to remind consumers of the jurisdiction clause when signing the agreement. Therefore, according to the above provisions, consumer Chen's claim that the jurisdiction agreement is invalid should be supported. Article 19 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that property leasing contracts and financial leasing contracts shall be performed at the place where the leased property is used. If the contract specifies the place of performance, follow its agreement. In this case, Chen filed a lawsuit for a lease contract dispute, involving the rental and use of a shared bicycle, which belongs to a property lease contract. The contract in question did not specify the place of contract performance, so the place of use of the leased property should be the place of contract performance. Chen now claims to lease and use shared bicycles in Haidian District, Beijing, therefore the Haidian District People's Court has jurisdiction over this case. The judge stated that the party providing a standard contract should follow the principle of fairness in determining the rights and obligations between the parties. When using standard terms to establish a jurisdiction agreement, reasonable methods should also be adopted, such as emphasizing bold and bold fonts, adding underscores, special reminders, and other methods that are sufficient to attract consumers' attention. If the obligation to prompt is not fulfilled, the other party claims that the jurisdiction agreement is invalid and has legal basis. In this case, Chen signed a shared bicycle service agreement with the shared bicycle operator. This agreement is pre drafted by the bike sharing operator for repeated use and is a standard contract. Although the agreement stipulates jurisdiction clauses, it does not specifically mark the jurisdiction clauses when blacklisting other text content. Compared to other agreement contents, the jurisdiction clauses are not prominent or significant enough to attract the attention of the other party. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the shared bicycle operator has fulfilled its obligation to take reasonable measures to draw consumers' attention. In the lawsuit, the shared bicycle operator also failed to provide evidence that they had fulfilled their corresponding obligations, so Chen, as a consumer, claimed that the jurisdiction clause was invalid and should be supported. This reflects the protection of consumer rights by law, which is conducive to preventing operators from taking advantage of the advantageous position of drafting standard terms to exclude or restrict consumers' rights without their knowledge. (New Society)