Skip to main content

Attorney General James Secures $600,000 from Fitness Company Equinox for its Hard-to-Cancel Memberships


NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced a settlement with Equinox Group, LLC (Equinox Group), which offers fitness services under Equinox, Equinox+, and SoulCycle, for making it hard for New Yorkers to cancel their membership. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that Equinox Group failed to clearly disclose its subscription terms, provide consumers with the subscription acknowledgment required by New York law, and offer cost-effective and easy-to-use online cancellation mechanisms. As a result of today’s settlement, Equinox Group must pay $600,000 in penalties, change its subscription practices, and offer refunds to subscribers who tried to cancel their membership but could not.

“New Yorkers should be able to cancel a membership they no longer use or want without breaking a sweat,” said Attorney General James. “The Equinox Group made it challenging for customers to end their membership, costing them time and money. As a result of my office’s settlement, New Yorkers can now cancel their membership with Equinox, SoulCycle, or any of Equinox Group’s brands much faster.”

New York law requires subscription terms to be clearly disclosed to customers, including the minimum term, the fact that the subscription renews, and the cancellation policy. Businesses must also obtain affirmative consent for automatic renewals, provide a post-purchase acknowledgment, and offer a cost effective, timely, and easy-to-use cancellation mechanism.

The OAG found that Equinox’s subscription terms were not clear and appeared in fine print disclosures or within a hard-to-understand terms and conditions document. Equinox also did not obtain informed affirmative consent from subscribers and did not provide them with a post-purchase acknowledgment. In addition, Equinox’s cancellation process was complex, difficult, and time-consuming. 

This settlement requires Equinox Group to pay $600,000 in penalties and provide refunds of up to $250 to eligible New York subscribers who filed complaints with the Equinox Group, Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau, or the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York between February 9, 2021 and December 31, 2024.

New York subscribers to Equinox gyms, SoulCycle, and Equinox+ online fitness classes who meet eligibility requirements may be eligible for up to $100 in restitution. New York Equinox Group customers who first became subscribers or attempted to cancel their subscription between February 9, 2021 and December 31, 2024 must email Equinox Group by August 2, 2025. SoulCycle subscribers should email NewYorkAGclaims@soul-cycle.com . Equinox Gym and Equinox+ subscribers should email NewYorkAGclaims@equinox.com. Subscriber restitution requests must include their name, and the phone number or email address associated with their account.

In addition to paying penalties and restitution, Equinox Group must improve its disclosures, obtain informed affirmative consent from subscribers, and provide customers with an acknowledgment including cancellation information. The settlement also requires Equinox Group to clearly and conspicuously disclose cancellation information in the subscription agreement and on an easily accessible website page for each brand.

This settlement is the latest in Attorney General James’ efforts to help customers with hard-to-cancel subscriptions. In December 2023, Attorney General James sued SiriusXM for trapping customers into unwanted subscriptions and in November 2024, a court found that SiriusXM violated the law by forcing customers to undergo a long and burdensome process to cancel their subscriptions.

This matter was handled by Assistant Attorney General Gena Feist and Laura Mumm, and former Assistant Attorney General Hanna Baek, under the supervision of Deputy Bureau Chief Clark Russell and Bureau Chief Kim Berger of the Bureau of Internet and Technology. The Bureau of Internet and Technology is a part of the Division for Economic Justice, which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General Chris D’Angelo and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more