Precor Treadmill Class Action Will Continue With Fewer Claims

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A federal judge will allow a Precor treadmill class action lawsuit to continue, but with substantial limitations on the possible Class Members and the type of remedy the plaintiffs can seek.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber said he will allow the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings once more to fix certain defects.

At the same time, the judge noted jurisdictional limitations that prevent the plaintiffs from representing consumers from many other states besides their home state of Illinois and that prevents them from seeking court orders restricting future advertisement by Precor.

Plaintiffs Gary Mednick and Steven Bayer brought this Precor class action lawsuit in 2014.

They allege the touch sensor-based heart rate monitors built into certain models of Precor treadmills fail to accurately report the user’s heart rate, particularly at more intense levels of effort.

Judge Leinenweber determined the plaintiffs have standing to represent Class Members who purchased Precor treadmills different from the ones plaintiffs purchased themselves.

Both Mednick and Bayer purchased only the 9.23 model of treadmill, yet they seek to represent proposed Class Members who purchased the 9.27, 9.31, 9.33, and 9.35 models.

The judge determined that all these Precor models, even those that incorporate different heart rate monitor mechanisms, are fair game for the proposed Classes because any one of them would make a good substitute for another in all practical purposes.

Judge Leinenweber trimmed the plaintiffs’ claims for prospective injunctive relief – their requests that the court order Precor to change the ways in which it advertises its heart monitor-equipped treadmills.

The judge said the plaintiffs did not allege any likelihood of future harm if such relief wasn’t granted.

In fact, he noted, the plaintiffs “specifically alleged facts suggesting that it is extremely unlikely that they will purchase Precor’s supposed defective machines again.”

The judge concluded Mednick and Bayer do not have standing to represent separate plaintiff Classes seeking injunctive relief.

The judge also disallowed the plaintiffs from bringing compounded misrepresentation claims under the consumer protection statutes of 10 different states, finding those states’ laws were not sufficiently similar.

The judge noted the invoked laws vary significantly in their statutes of limitation, their available damages, and their requirements as to what constitutes wrongful intent on the defendant’s part.

The judge will allow the plaintiffs to replead their multi-state allegations to cover a smaller number of states, in a way that shows those states’ laws are sufficiently similar.

On the issue of exactly which treadmills are at issue in this Precor class action lawsuit, Judge Leinenweber is leaving it to the parties to work that out within the relative time frame the plaintiffs said they would need.

In their amended complaint, Mednick and Bayer now raise a single claim under the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and under consumer protection statutes of nine other states, which the plaintiffs say are “materially similar” to the Illinois statute.

Mednick and Bayer are represented by Katrina Carroll and Kyle Shamberg of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Joseph Siprut of Siprut PC, and Richard Gordon of Gordon Law Offices Ltd.

The Precor Defective Heart Rate Monitor Class Action Lawsuit is Mednick, et al. v. Precor Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03624, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

UPDATE: On Oct. 27, 2016, consumers alleging that Precor’s treadmills give inaccurate heart rate readings are asking an Illinois federal judge once again to certify their class action lawsuit.

UPDATE 2: On Jan. 3, 2016, fitness equipment company Precor told the Court that certification is not appropriate in a class action lawsuit alleging the heart rate monitors in its treadmills are defective.

UPDATE 3: July 2019, the Precor treadmill class action settlement is now open. Click here file a claim.