24 Hour Fitness Class Action Says Retail Pricing Designed to Deceive

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 California man says 24 Hour Fitness has been using a deceptive pricing scheme to sell retail merchandise at its gym locations.

According to plaintiff Eric Dickinson, this merchandise is marked with an original price, or “Reg Price,” that is “artificial, arbitrary,” and not representative of the actual price for which defendant 24 Hour Fitness normally sells that merchandise when it’s not on sale.

When that original price is compared with the lower “Now Only!” price for which the merchandise is actually being offered for sale, Dickinson claims, it gives shoppers a false impression of a nonexistent discount. Shoppers are then more inclined to make a purchase, but only because they have been deceived into thinking they would get a greater value than what’s actually being offered, he claims.

Dickinson’s 24 Hour Fitness class action lawsuit includes photos of products for sale in 24 Hour Fitness locations that illustrate the pricing strategy at issue.

One photo shows a canister of Dymatize ISO100 Hydrolyzed Protein Powder marked with a “Reg Price” of $74.99 and a “Now Only!” price of $49.99. Another photo shows containers of Cellular C4 Powder with a “Reg Price” of $39.99 and a “Now Only!” price of $29.99.

Dickinson says he purchased both of those products in part because he was under the impression he would be paying prices that were significantly less than the ordinary prices for both products.

He later found out that the “Reg Price” marked on each of those items was not a “bona fide price at 24 Hour Fitness offered the products on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time.”

“Nor were the advertised “Reg Price[s]” prevailing market retail prices within three months immediately preceding the publication of the advertised former prices,” he alleges. Therefore, Dickinson says he was deceived into purchasing these products at what was actually their full retail price, receiving no true discount.

This 24 Hour Fitness class action lawsuit raises claims under California’s consumer protection laws. California law governs the advertising of “former” retail prices so that purchasers won’t be deceived in the way Dickinson describes here. The law generally prohibits businesses from advertising original prices that are arbitrary, or for which the item was not offered for sale for a significant length of time.

Dickinson is proposing to bring his claims on behalf of a nationwide plaintiff Class covering all persons who, within the applicable statutory limitations period, purchased products from 24 Hour Fitness that were advertised with a discount price.

He seeks an award of damages, restitution and disgorgement of revenues related to the allegedly deceptive pricing, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees. He is also asking the court to order 24 Hour Fitness to cease the pricing practice at issue, to accept returns of any product so advertised, and to price match any competitor’s price for the same product.

Dickinson is represented by attorneys Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot and Vanessa Shakib of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, Reuben D. Nathan of Nathan & Associates APC, and Ross Cornell of Law Offices of Ross Cornell.

The 24 Hour Fitness Misleading Pricing Class Action Lawsuit is Dickinson v. 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04877, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.