Multiple cardholders of the Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited American Express Safari credit card, who applied in 2025, have recently voiced complaints on social media. They allege that bank staff did not clearly explain the restrictions on using points to waive the annual fee when they applied for the card.
As a result, many cardholders have found that a large number of their accumulated bonus points are now invalid, blocking the path to waiving the annual fee. The new rule restricts fee waivers to transaction-based points only, a limitation that was not indicated in the original agreement.
Ms. Ren, a cardholder, told reporters that when she applied for the card in 2025, bank staff informed her that the first year's annual fee could be redeemed and refunded within six months of being charged using 150,000 points, without specifying that only transaction points were eligible.
She provided a copy of the card application agreement, which in the annual fee waiver policy section clearly stated: "Clients successfully approved before December 31, 2025, can enjoy a first-year preferential fee of 1,800 yuan per card per year, charged upon activation... New customers can apply for a refund of the first-year annual fee within six months of it being charged using 150,000 points." The agreement contained no explanation or restrictions regarding the type of points.
Mr. Liu was also attracted by this promotional information and applied for the Safari card. He subsequently participated in several Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited promotional activities, such as "Juhuihua" spending rewards and new customer gift points, accumulating 170,000 points. Believing this was sufficient to waive the next year's fee, he applied for redemption in May this year. However, customer service informed him that according to the latest rules, only transaction points accumulated through everyday spending could be used. Of his 170,000 points, less than 30,000 were transaction points, failing to meet the threshold.
Reporters later checked the official credit card fee standards on Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited's website and found the current annual fee rules for the Safari card. Compared to the agreement Ms. Ren signed in 2025, aside from an adjustment to the approval date, another change was the restriction of fee-waiving points to "transaction points."
Cardholders Raise Three Key Objections, Arguing New Rules Are Invalid
Regarding Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited's unilateral change to the points redemption terms, multiple cardholders have raised three main questions.
First, they argue the promotional materials were ambiguous and failed in the duty to inform. Cardholders report that during the 2025 application period, the bank's offline relationship managers and some branch posters only stated "the first year's 1,800 yuan annual fee can be redeemed and refunded using 150,000 points," without prominently noting the restriction to transaction points. At the time, card guides and reviews on various platforms generally assumed all points were eligible, which was a core reason for many users, like Mr. Liu, to apply for this premium card.
Second, the updated fee standards do not clearly define "transaction points," making the distinction between the two point types模糊不清 and difficult for cardholders to discern. A cardholder in Beijing mentioned purchasing a "Juhuihua" points package for 299 yuan as suggested by a relationship manager, receiving tens of thousands of points. Since these points were also obtained through a transaction, why does the bank not recognize them as eligible transaction points?
Third, some customers from the same period successfully redeemed their fees, indicating inconsistent enforcement by the bank. Cardholders claim to have seen screenshots on credit card forums and social media from late 2025 to early 2026 showing users of the same card successfully redeeming and getting their annual fees refunded using 150,000 points that included bonus points. The sudden tightening of rules and inconsistent enforcement standards severely harm the legitimate rights and interests of existing cardholders.
Cardholders generally contend that the bank's 2025 promotional promises constituted a service agreement. The unilateral refinement and tightening of the points redemption rules in 2026 represents a one-sided amendment of standard contract terms by the bank, seriously infringing on cardholders' rights. As Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited did not adequately inform existing users or establish a reasonable transition period for announcement, the new rules should not be binding on customers approved in 2025.
Legal Perspective: Unilateral Changes May Be Invalid and Infringe on Consumer Rights
The discrepancy between the bank's latest fee standards and its original promotion raises the question of which should prevail. Furthermore, should the new standards apply to existing cardholders?
Wang Deyi, a lawyer at Beijing Xunzhen Law Firm, stated that bank credit card agreements typically use standard terms. According to the Civil Code, if a dispute arises over the interpretation of a standard term provided by the bank, it should be interpreted according to common understanding. If there are two or more possible interpretations, the interpretation unfavorable to the party providing the term—the bank—should be adopted.
The 2025 fee document issued by the bank only stated that 150,000 points could be used to redeem the annual fee, without distinguishing point types or limiting it to transaction points. The bank's 2026 unilateral modification of the rules to restrict the waiver to 150,000 transaction points constitutes a one-sided change to the contract or a restrictive interpretation of a core clause.
Wang Deyi analyzed that the key to this dispute lies in the sequence: promotion and contract formation came first, rule changes came later, and the notification process was lacking, indicating compliance vulnerabilities in the bank's operations.
Without clear notification to and explicit consent from cardholders, this new restriction lacks legal effect on them. Informing cardholders of the usage restrictions only after they have participated in point-gifting activities and formed reasonable expectations violates the principle of fairness. According to the Consumer Rights Protection Law, if customers from the same batch with the same card type successfully redeemed using points that included bonus points, the bank's refusal to treat objecting customers equally涉嫌侵害消费者的公平交易权. Regulators can order corrections if there is a lack of正当理由.
It is understood that several cardholders have already submitted negotiation requests to Hua Xia Bank Co.,Limited, and the bank has responded to some cardholders' redemption requests. Developments in this matter will continue to be monitored.
Comments