In a case challenging certain provisions in a health club’s form contract and alleging Chapter 93A violations, the Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts considered defendants’ motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See Hayes v. Planet Fitness AssetCo., LLC (Oct. 7, 2024). The services contract provisions required club members to waive or release claims against defendants. In a prior proceeding, another judge determined the provisions at issue violated the Health Club Act. After filing a second amended complaint and engaging in discovery, plaintiffs moved for class certification and defendants moved for summary judgment. 

Plaintiffs electronically executed a contract for health club services and paid the amounts due under the contract. After receiving plaintiffs’ demand letter, defendants revised the contract to remove the offending terms and notified all members whose contracts contained the offending provisions of the revision. The following day, defendants responded to the demand letter maintaining that no member, including plaintiffs, suffered harm due to the offending language’s inclusion and offered to refund plaintiffs’ prior payments if they terminated the contract. Thereafter, defendants sent plaintiffs a check refunding the amount plaintiffs previously paid to defendant, which plaintiffs’ counsel returned.

Plaintiffs argued they were harmed by paying the sign-up fee for services and access to the facilities. Alternatively, plaintiffs alleged they suffered harm as a result of emails they received from defendants, or as a result of defendants providing third parties with their email address for marketing purposes. The Superior Court rejected these arguments. While the court determined that the offending provisions in the contract violated the Health Club Act, it concluded that plaintiffs were not injured by the terms’ inclusion. Specifically, no one was injured while using defendants’ services or facilities, no one brought claims that could have implicated the offending provisions in the contract, and there was no evidence that any defendant ever invoked any of the offending provisions in connection with plaintiffs or any other customers. 

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim. As to the motion for class certification, because plaintiffs were not entitled to bring a claim under c. 93A, the claims were not suitable to bring a claim on behalf of others. Therefore, the court denied the motion for class certification.