Class Actions That Changed the Way You Work Out

There’s been a lot of news lately about lawsuits filed against Fitbit, the wearable fitness tech that’s taking the fitness world by storm. In the suits, consumers allege that the heartrate monitor in Fitbit’s Surge and Charge HR bands fails to live up to the company’s claims because they “do not and cannot consistently and accurately record wearers’ heart rates” during intense workouts. And, here’s where Fitbit really gets in trouble. In one multi-state lawsuit, plaintiffs claim that the Fitbits are deceptively marketed because the company never disclosed the inaccuracy – and even go as far as to say the products are dangerous if users can’t precisely measure their heartrates while working out.

The case highlights the role class action lawsuits play in shaping how fitness gadgets are made and sold – and, not to mention, the wider role of lawsuits in changing how we work and play. It’s been a while, so here at ClassAction.org we’ve decided it’s time for another example of how class action lawsuits have changed the world!

(For previous blogs in this series, see how class actions changed the way we shop, drink, travel, eat, use the internet, and play sports.)

If the Shoe Fits: Vibram Agrees to Change Language Over Shoes’ Claims

You might remember Vibram “FiveFinger” running shoes – strange, sock-glove combinations that were touted as beneficial for runners due to their ability to strengthen foot muscles and decrease the risk of foot injuries. Shockingly, those claims, according to a class action lawsuit, turned out to be entirely lacking in scientific backing.

In 2014, the company settled a class action lawsuit over the shoes, agreeing to pay consumers who bought Vibram shoes (including Alitza, Bikila, Estrada, Flow, Fresca, Jaya, Komodo, Lontra, Speed, and more) up to $94 per pair. More importantly, however, the $3.75 million settlement required Vibram to take commercially reasonable efforts to change certain aspects of its advertising and marketing campaign.

Specifically, Vibram is no longer able to claim its products help strengthen muscles or prevent injuries and cannot make any health benefit claims unless the company “possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate that the claim is true and non-misleading.” It’s safe to say that Vibram and similar companies will now be far more cautious about selling shoes with claims about fitness and keeping their customers toned.

Getting Out of Working Out: Gym Contracts and the Law

In 2013, LA Fitness was accused of breaching its own contracts by failing to process membership cancellations in a timely manner. The popular gym chain also faced claims that it included confusing and misleading language in its membership agreements.

In the suit, plaintiff Sophia Martina alleged that the company continued to automatically charge her membership fees even after she cancelled her contract – and that the gym’s insistence that members mail letters to the California headquarters to cancel memberships was unnecessarily arduous. Rather than fight the case, LA Fitness agreed to settle for $3.8 million (while maintaining that it had done nothing wrong), to be paid out in 45-day free access passes and $100 credit toward new membership for the roughly 50,000 claimants in the case.

The case highlights how frustrating gym membership cancellation can be – but it’s also part of a movement to force gyms to change their longstanding policies. More and more gyms are doing away with contracts altogether – something that seemed impossible even 10 years ago – and opting for monthly fees that can be stopped at any time. A definite win for gym goers and consumers, and a good warning for companies not to overstep their boundaries.

Labeling Shakeup: Protein Shakes Must Be More Accurate

Iovate protein products, including Six Star and MuscleTech shakes and protein gels, were at the center of a class action lawsuit settled earlier this year over “protein spiking.” (This practice involves “spiking” products with additional ingredients to make them appear as if they contain more protein than they actually do.) Consumers claimed that as a result of the “protein spiking,” the powders and shakes they were buying contained less protein than advertised.

While Iovate denies the “protein spiking” claims, the company agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle the case. More important, perhaps, is the fact that more people know about the practice now and that protein spikers such as amino acids and creatine cannot be used in such a way in similar products. In fact, the FDA has denounced the practice, telling Forbes that:

“FDA’s expectation for proper nutrition labeling is that firms will evaluate the protein content from actual protein sources—not other nitrogen-containing ingredients such as individual amino acids—and label the products consistent with the results of such evaluations.”

A good, concrete change to keep you all informed and safe.

Weight Loss Supplements

At the end of last year, we wrote about the weight loss supplement industry in America and the many problems with their products’ labeling. Lawsuits can seem cumbersome, but they’re proving one of the most effective ways of bringing accountability to a growing industry – and it’s clear that there’s more to be done.

In February this year, a class action was filed against celebrity health expert Dr. Oz after he described weight loss supplement Garcinia Cambogia as a “magic weight loss cure,” a claim plaintiffs say has no scientific backing. As the suit explains:

“As a renowned surgeon at Columbia University with specialized medical and scientific knowledge, Dr. Oz knew that the claims he was making about the supplements being ‘miracle fat busters’ were patently false or misleading consumers. Dr. Oz concealed his fraud by affirmatively representing to consumers that he was giving his objective opinion about the products based on his specialized knowledge.”

The claims stem from a 2012 episode of Dr. Oz’s show (which also prompted a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit in 2014 that forced the talk show host to testify before a Senate committee) and plaintiffs argue that the single study supporting Dr. Oz’s claims about Garginia Cambogia has since been discredited. Intense media coverage of the case has also helped draw attention to possible link between Dr. Oz’s show and supplement makers, though show reps have stated that “the Dr. Oz Show does not sell these products nor does he have any financial ties to these companies.”

In regard to dietary supplements and the controversy surrounding them, the FTC and FDA have made their stance clear: claims about these products’ supposed benefits must be backed by evidence. And, while this particular suit is still ongoing, with every lawsuit, companies are taught that they must use more caution and be more precise with their wording and claims. That is good news for consumers, and good news for everyone who’s interested in staying fit and healthy.

Well, there will never be one right way to work out and there are so many different ways to stay fit that there will always be some gray areas when companies make claims about their fitness products and services. Still, when health is concerned, we all have a right to access accurate information and quality services and, for that reason, class action lawsuits have a big role to play in changing the way we work out.