Boston Gym Sued for $4M After Charging Members While Closed During COVID

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office has announced that nearly $4 million in restitution will be distributed to tens of thousands of consumers who were charged by Boston Sports Club during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, even while its gym locations were closed.

The restitution stems from a legal victory against Patrick Walsh, the former CEO of Town Sports International, the company behind Boston Sports Club. According to the court’s findings, Walsh made the decision to continue billing members in April 2020 despite knowing that the gyms would remain inaccessible due to pandemic shutdowns. That decision ultimately became the centerpiece of the state’s case.

At the height of the pandemic, Boston Sports Club locations across Massachusetts were closed from mid-March through July 2020. During that period, thousands of members suddenly found themselves paying for services they could not use. What made matters worse, according to both consumer complaints and trial testimony, was the difficulty many faced when attempting to cancel their memberships. Members reported repeated attempts to reach the company through phone calls, emails, and even social media, often without success. Some testified that they continued to be charged even after submitting cancellation requests.

The Attorney General’s Office received more than 2,000 complaints related to these issues. These complaints played a significant role in building the case, helping to demonstrate a pattern of conduct that went beyond a single billing decision. The court ultimately found that the company not only charged members unfairly but also made deceptive statements and interfered with customers’ ability to cancel their contracts, in violation of state consumer protection laws and the Health Club Act.

As a result of the ruling, approximately 47,000 consumers will now receive restitution. The total payout is expected to approach $4 million, covering those who were billed during the closure period and did not already receive refunds or credits from the company.

Because of the large number of affected consumers, the state has brought in a third-party administrator to manage the refund process. Eligible individuals will receive an email with instructions on how to claim their payment. They will need to log into a designated website using a claim number and PIN provided in that communication, select a payment method, and submit their claim within a specified timeframe.

The case highlights a broader issue that emerged during the pandemic, when businesses across multiple industries were forced to shut down but continued to navigate billing practices in uncertain conditions. While some companies paused charges or issued automatic refunds, others did not, leading to disputes like this one.

In this instance, the court drew a clear line. Charging consumers for services that could not be delivered, particularly when done knowingly, was deemed unfair and deceptive. The decision reinforces the principle that even during extraordinary circumstances, businesses remain bound by consumer protection laws and must act transparently and in good faith.

For affected customers, the restitution represents not just a financial recovery but also a resolution to a dispute that began nearly six years ago. For regulators, it stands as another example of enforcement efforts aimed at holding companies accountable for how they treated consumers during one of the most disruptive periods in recent history.

IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT US