Class Action Lawsuit Over Deleted Peloton Classes Rides Out Motion to Dismiss

Stationary bike consumers claiming false advertisement of an “ever-growing” library of Peloton classes overcame a motion by the company to dismiss their case.

A group of plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging Peloton falsely advertised its services after a separate lawsuit by the National Music Publishers Association resulted in the company removing over half of the classes it offered. The plaintiffs said that they and other customers who paid thousands for a stationary bike and a pricey monthly fee to access Peloton classes were not informed by the company that it would be removing over half of its workout options.

The complaint was originally filed by three plaintiffs, New York, Michigan, and California residents. Law360 reports that, in July, the California plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims in the class action. Peloton moved to have the remaining claims dismissed.

A federal judge agreed with Peloton that the Michigan plaintiff’s claims could not be brought under New York law; however, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis K. Liman refused to dump the remainder of the false advertising claims, pointing out that the remaining plaintiff is a New York resident.

Indeed, Peloton made five other arguments to dismiss the class action lawsuit, each of which was rejected by Judge Liman. Peloton argued that it had discretion to remove classes under the Terms of Service customers agree to when they sign up for the service. Stating that Peloton’s arguments to dismiss under its Terms of Service were “based on a non-sequitur,” Judge Liman remained unconvinced.

“Peloton’s Terms of Service may have protected it from a breach of contract or similar claim for the removal of a particular class or group of classes,” notes the order, “However, the Terms of Service do not relieve Peloton from a deceptive marketing claim based on the allegation that Peloton advertised its library as ever-growing while knowing that it would be diminishing or shrinking in size.”

Similarly, Judge Liman was not moved by Peloton’s assertion that the advertising of its classes was “mere puffery.”

“Peloton’s promise that the class library would be ‘ever-growing’ was not an opinion, nor was it vague and non-specific,” Judge Liman concluded in his option. “It did not necessarily mean that all the classes available at any particular time would remain available at a future time or prevent Peloton from removing a specific class or group of classes. But it was nonetheless a measurable claim, promising that the class library in aggregate would continue to grow. Because the promises of an ‘ever-growing’ library were objective, testable statements, they are therefore actionable.”

The stationary bike company also contended that the term “ever-growing” is not deceptive or misleading to consumers and instead could be construed to mean that Peloton classes are always changing, like over half of the classes being removed. Again, Judge Liman remained unconvinced by Peloton’s argument.

“The plain meaning of ‘ever-growing’ is ‘always increasing or expanding in size,’” stated the judge in his order. “Even if Peloton did add new content every day, it would ‘not be accurate to describe a library with more than 10,000 classes on one day and less than 4,500 the next as ‘growing.’”

Similarly, Judge Liman dismissed Peloton’s arguments that the plaintiffs failed to establish that they relied on advertising that the class library was “ever-growing” and that they did not suffer an injury due to the alleged false advertising.

“The Complaint alleges that ‘Plaintiffs attributed value to Peloton’s promises regarding the nature and characteristics of its on-demand digital library and would not have purchased the hardware and corresponding Peloton Membership, or would not have purchased it on the same terms, if they knew the truth,” pointed out the judge in his order. “No more is necessary at this stage.”

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs reportedly stated that they were pleased with the outcome of Peloton’s motion to dismiss, despite the trimming of the Michigan plaintiff’s claims from the class action lawsuit.

“Judge Liman ruled in plaintiffs’ favor on all of the substantive issues in this case right down the line,” an attorney representing the plaintiff told legal news source, Law360. “We look forward to continuing to prosecute this case through nationwide class certification and trial so that we can hold Peloton accountable for its improper conduct with respect to its gutting of its on-demand class library.”

Are you a customer who noticed that the company deleted Peloton classes? We want to hear from you! Tell us what happened in the comment section below!

The plaintiffs are represented by Gregg G. Gutzler, Adam Levitt, and Adam Prom of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC and Ashley C. Keller and J. Dominick Larry of Keller Lenkner LLC.

The Deleted Peloton Classes Class Action Lawsuit is Eric Fishon, et al. v. Peloton Interactive Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-11711, in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Peloton Recalls Clip-In Bike Pedals Following Breaks, Injuries
• Peloton Class Action Says Videos Lack Captions
• How Can California Assembly Bill 218 Protect Sexual Abuse Survivors?
• Noom Website Trackers Breach California Privacy Law, Class Action Lawsuit Claims