Fair Trade Commission corrects ChampStudy's unfair instructor contract terms

ChampStudy, which operates the brand 'Hackers Online Lecture,' received corrective action from the Fair Trade Commission for using unfair terms that negatively affect its instructors. It was investigated that if instructors did not mention the termination of their contract three months prior, the contract was automatically extended for three years, and the teaching materials and other derivative works were treated as the property of the academy rather than the instructor.

The Fair Trade Commission announced on the 18th that it identified seven types (nine clauses) of unfair lecture contract terms between 'Hackers Online Lecture' and instructors and took corrective action. ChampStudy is a business under the Hackers Education Group and provides various online and offline lectures for acquiring qualifications, civil service exams, and language studies under the brand name 'Hackers Online Lecture.'

One type of unfair term corrected this time is the 'implicit contract extension' clause. In the contract terms for lectures and publishing, it stipulated that if an instructor did not express their intent to terminate the contract at least three months before the expiration date, it would automatically renew for three years. The Fair Trade Commission pointed out that 'If an instructor has no intention of continuing the contract, the contract relationship is significantly extended without a separate termination procedure within the period, effectively binding them to the contract unfairly for an extended period.'

There was also a clause allowing the academy to unilaterally decide on lecture schedules or to suspend lectures. The academy decided the opening of courses or schedules without consulting the instructors, who were required to comply. As a result, instructors were unable to participate in decisions regarding the scope of services they needed to provide. Furthermore, remote lectures could also be suspended at the academy's discretion, leaving instructors in an unstable position, unsure of when their teaching services might be interrupted, as noted by the Fair Trade Commission.

There were clauses that granted the academy unilateral and comprehensive rights to create derivative works such as teaching materials and content. According to copyright law, the rights to create derivative works belong to the original creator, and for the academy to acquire this right, a separate agreement with the instructor is required. However, ChampStudy unilaterally included the transfer of rights to create derivatives in the lecture contract terms and ruled that all revenue generated from this would belong to the academy.

Additionally, the Fair Trade Commission pointed out several issues, including clauses that allow unlimited use of the instructor's name and image even after contract termination, clauses that consider the permanent transfer of copyright to the academy by the instructor, and clauses that vaguely define reasons for termination. Following the Fair Trade Commission's critiques, ChampStudy deleted or revised the problematic terms.

The Fair Trade Commission noted, 'It is expected that the rights of the instructors will be strengthened, and competition in the online lecture market may also be promoted.'

Meanwhile, this is not the first time ChampStudy has faced sanctions from the Fair Trade Commission. Previously, ChampStudy was sanctioned by the Fair Trade Commission in June 2023 and last January for false and exaggerated advertising practices toward consumers.