YourSalon Research · Methodology
Central European Salon Cancellation & Deposit Fairness Index 2026
Research question
Are the public cancellation and deposit policies of salons fair, clear and balanced for a client — before they book — across the four markets?
Scope
A structured audit of PUBLIC cancellation and deposit policies against consumer-protection fairness principles. It scores clarity, proportionality, flexibility and balance — it does NOT rule any specific term legally (un)fair and is not legal advice.
Time period
2026 — single annual edition.
Markets
Czechia, Poland, Germany, Slovakia. (A European result is not assumed to hold for markets not sampled.) — Czechia, Poland, Germany, Slovakia
Target population
Salons that publish any cancellation or deposit terms (own site, booking page or marketplace profile) across business types in the four markets.
Planned sample
Target 300–600 published policies, distributed across countries and salon types. The final number is disclosed only after collection.
Inclusion criteria
- Salons that publish any cancellation, no-show or deposit terms on a public page.
- Across business types and across own-site vs marketplace policies.
Exclusion criteria
- Salons with no public cancellation/deposit terms — counted separately as 'no published policy', never scored as unfair.
- Test/staging pages and outdated terms that are not the current public offer.
Data collection
- We read only PUBLIC policy text. We never book, contact the salon or submit personal data.
- Each policy is scored on 13 signals grouped into seven dimensions: visibility before booking, plain-language clarity, notice period, deposit/penalty proportionality, reschedule allowance, illness/emergency exception, salon-cancellation duty, client/salon symmetry, refund conditions, refund timeline, payment-failure handling, no-show handling and a dispute contact path.
Scoring framework
Each policy scores 0–100 — the Cancellation Fairness Score. The direction is fixed: 100 = clear, proportionate and balanced for the client; 0 = opaque, punitive or one-sided. Fairness here follows consumer-protection principles (good faith, no significant imbalance to the consumer's detriment, plain language), not a legal ruling.
100 = fair, clear and balanced; 0 = opaque, punitive or one-sided.
| Scoring framework | % | — |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility before booking | 15 | Cancellation and deposit terms are shown before the client commits, Not hidden only in a confirmation email or after payment |
| Plain-language clarity | 15 | Terms are in plain, intelligible language, Notice period, deposit and refund are unambiguous |
| Notice & proportionality | 20 | Notice period is reasonable for the service, Deposit size and any penalty are proportionate, not punitive |
| Flexibility | 15 | A first reschedule is allowed, A stated exception for illness or emergencies |
| Symmetry (both sides) | 15 | The salon's own duty if it cancels is stated, Client and salon obligations are broadly balanced |
| Refund & payment handling | 10 | Refund conditions and a refund timeline are stated, What happens on a failed/partial payment is clear |
| Recourse | 10 | A contact path for a dispute is given, The client knows who to ask and how |
Formulas
- Dimension score:
normalized indicator points within the dimension weight - Cancellation Fairness Score:
Σ dimension scores (0–100, higher = fairer)
Missing data
A signal that cannot be assessed (e.g. no refund terms published) is recorded with its reason, not silently scored zero; the 'no published policy' rate is reported separately.
Quality control
- A written rubric maps each fairness signal to consumer-protection principles so two auditors score a policy the same way.
- A random subset is re-scored by a second auditor; disagreements are reconciled with a legal reviewer.
- Ambiguous or borderline terms are logged, not decided silently.
Potential bias
- Business-type and channel mix differ by country and can shift a country's average — reported alongside the mix.
- Auditors read as informed adults; a specific consumer's understanding may differ.
Limitations
- This applies consumer-protection PRINCIPLES as a fairness framework — it is NOT a legal ruling that any term is unfair or unlawful.
- Public policy text only; a term applied differently in practice is out of scope.
- No salon is named as 'unfair'; only aggregated data and anonymized examples are published.
Privacy
- No bookings, no contact, no personal data.
- Only aggregated results and anonymized examples are published.
Correction policy
Before publication the aggregated results and any anonymized examples pass an independent legal review. A salon or platform may request a correction with evidence; verified corrections are logged.
Update policy
Annual edition; the change log records every update and correction.
Contact
Methodology and media questions: info@yoursalon.cz
Sources and methodology
- [1] Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts — European Union (EUR-Lex), 1993-04-05. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31993L0013(checked 2026-07-05)Unfair Terms Directive. Art. 3(1): a non-individually-negotiated term is unfair if, contrary to good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. Art. 5: written terms must be in plain, intelligible language. Legal CONTEXT for the Cancellation Fairness scoring dimensions; the benchmark does not rule any specific term legally (un)fair.
- [2] Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights — European Union (EUR-Lex), 2011-10-25. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32011L0083(checked 2026-07-05)Consumer Rights Directive, Art. 5 & 6: before the consumer is bound, the trader must give the total price of the service inclusive of taxes — or, where it cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which it will be calculated — plus any additional charges. Legal CONTEXT for why price clarity matters; the benchmark measures clarity to the client, not legal compliance.