Exhausted? Gym fails in lawsuit against 17-year-old

From the weight bench straight to the judges

This is what happened to a 17-year-old from the Munich area who actually only wanted to train with a friend for a few weeks. In the end, the case ended up in court because the gym suddenly claimed a 24-month contract worth more than €700. The young man and his mother saw things very differently—and won the case.

What happened? According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, two friends wanted to take advantage of a limited-time special offer from a gym in the fall of 2021: one month of training for two people for €39. The main user registered online as required and listed his friend as a companion. So far, so good. But what the gym did with this information later caused a lot of trouble.

Trial month booked – long-term contract foisted on you?

To gain access to the studio, the 17-year-old had to pay a deposit of €20, for which he received a transponder. He was also given a form which, according to the studio, was intended as a "membership application" and had to be signed by his mother. Was there a separate form for the trial offer? No. This raised questions later on.

Although the trial month ended on time—and with it the training for the accompanying person—a demand suddenly arrived in the mail: a 24-month contract had allegedly been concluded. The price: weekly payments of €16.98, totaling €710.24 for two years of training. The only problem was that no training had taken place after the trial month.

The mother of the 17-year-old made it clear that she had only signed the form so that her son could get the transponder—but without filling in any fields or ticking any boxes. The main user also confirmed that there had only ever been talk of a one-month trial period. The friend had been explicitly registered as an accompanying person—not as an independent contractor.

Court shows little sympathy for muscle lawsuit

In the end, the district court did not sympathize with the studio's actions. At first glance, the form did look like a contract—including check marks next to certain rate options. However, according to the mother's statement, these fields were empty at the time of signing. The court made it clear that it could not be ruled out that a studio employee had added these check marks later—either accidentally or intentionally. The suspicion of possible manipulation remained.

The verdict: lawsuit dismissed. The claim for over €700? Invalid. However, the verdict is not yet final.

It's clear who pumped incorrectly here.

A 17-year-old doesn't sign anything, nor does his mother – at least not in the way the gym would like them to. And yet they still try to foist a two-year contract on him? Sorry, but that doesn't smell like a mistake, it smells more like a system. Anyone who "creates" contracts in this way is playing with the trust of young people – and ultimately risks being rightly rejected by the courts.

Perhaps some studios should focus on fairness rather than growth for the time being.

Source: sueddeutsche.de