Grift
24 Hour Fitness
Admitted their error,
and still kept the money.
In Their Own Words
Please let me apologize for this becoming such an issue for you. Jon should not have set you up on a recurring package.
I was able to refund half of October and all of November.
District Fitness Manager I D 9 PNW I D10 Hawaii
COMS Lead for WILD
24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.
The Promise
After admitting their error, Laurie promised:
"Half of October + all of November"
The Shortchange
Refunded $766 — only 37.5% of October
Not the 50% she promised.
Then went silent.
If an honest mistake, why disappear—
but continue posting on social media?
Sloppy, or strategic top-down culture?
(See Partial Refund Math)
"I'll Cancel It For You."
A cancellation request was made. It was acknowledged. It was never processed.
The Cancellation Request
In July 2025, General Manager Jon H. sold me a training package at the McLoughlin location in Portland. I had bilateral arm injuries so severe I couldn't pick up a glass of water. It was clearly discussed that I could not begin training until I recovered—which would take several months.
Jon explained a way to get me better pricing:
- He would use a "monthly subscription" structure to get me the lowest price.
- He would cancel this automatically in 3 days so I wouldn't have any further billing.
- Throughout the sale, there was continual reassurance that everything was handled: "I got you covered."
Cancellation Never Processed
Jon never cancelled the billing as requested. Instead, 24 Hour Fitness charged my card $557.12 every month while I was at home, physically unable to even lift a glass of water.
This is the same pattern that led to their $295 million settlement (2010): "continued withdrawing membership fees from bank accounts after members cancelled."
The "Fine Print" in Section 5d
24 Hour Fitness's contract includes an integration clause (Section 5d) stating that verbal promises are not binding. But this doesn't apply here:
- This wasn't adding new contract terms—it was a cancellation request.
- Integration clauses cannot shield fraud in the inducement (false promises made to induce signing).
- Failed cancellation processing is an operational failure, not a contract interpretation issue.
"To get the best pricing, I'll set up a recurring subscription and personally cancel it after 3 days."
— Jon H., General Manager
"Several times during the sales process I confirmed there was nothing more I needed to do—it was handled."
Documented Pattern
This matches the pattern established in multiple legal actions against 24 Hour Fitness:
$295M Settlement (2010)
Continued charging after cancellation requests
BBB Complaints (Ongoing)
"Proper in-person cancellation with verbal confirmation, but 24HF fails to process"
They Admitted It. In Writing.
On January 25, 2026, District Fitness Manager Laurie N. sent this email acknowledging that their employee should not have enrolled me the way he did.
Hi Sebastian,
I hope you are well, and you are recovering from your medical treatment.
Please let me apologize for this becoming such an issue for you. Jon should not have set you up on a recurring package. The intent behind the discounted training is that the client will continue for 2 to 3 months.
I was able to refund half of October and all of November...
Why This Admission Matters
Admission Against Interest
Under Oregon Evidence Code (ORS 40.460), statements by party-opponents are not hearsay and are admissible as direct evidence.
Agent Admission Binds Principal
As District Manager, Laurie N.'s admission binds 24 Hour Fitness under agency law principles.
Undermines Contract Defense
Their own management admits the enrollment "should not have" occurred as structured, regardless of what the written contract says.
The Admission Means ALL Charges Were Unauthorized
"Jon should not have set you up on a recurring package" means the entire $2,228.48 was collected without proper authorization. By their own admission, they are in violation.
The Inadequate Partial Refund
Instead of returning the full unauthorized amount, Laurie N. offered"half of October and all of November" — and didn't even deliver that:
Even her inadequate offer was under-delivered by $69.64
Unauthorized amount: $2,228.48 • Refunded: $766.04 • Still owed: $1,462.44
Communication ended.
They Knew, But Kept Billing!
On August 11, 2025—the same day they processed the first disputed $557.12 charge—I informed their trainer of my medical condition.
Legal Significance: Constructive Knowledge
Under Oregon agency law, knowledge acquired by an agent (Brett, the trainer) within the scope of employment is imputed to the principal (24 Hour Fitness).
"Knowledge of an agent acquired while acting within the scope of the agent's authority is imputed to the principal."
— Restatement (Third) of Agency § 5.03
This Evidence Establishes:
- 24 Hour Fitness had actual notice of my medical incapacity
- They knew I could not physically use their services
- They continued billing on the same day of this notice
- They continued billing for three additional months thereafter
The Documented Sequence of Events
Initial Purchase — 8 Training Sessions
I purchased 8 personal training sessions for $833.00 at the McLoughlin location in Portland. General Manager Jon H. explained that to get the best pricing, he would set up a recurring subscription and personally cancel it after 3 days to ensure no additional charges would occur.
"Several times during the sales process I confirmed there was nothing more I needed to do — it was handled."
— From my January 22, 2026 email to District Manager
First Unauthorized Charge + Injury Disclosure
24 Hour Fitness charges $557.12 despite Jon's promise to cancel. On the same day, I text trainer Brett that "it's painful to pick up a glass of water most days."
Second Unauthorized Charge
24 Hour Fitness charges $557.12. I remain medically incapacitated.
Third Unauthorized Charge
24 Hour Fitness charges $557.12.
Fourth Unauthorized Charge
24 Hour Fitness charges $557.12. Total unauthorized charges now: $2,228.48.
Discovery + In-Person Meeting with Jon
Upon beginning my training, I discover the unauthorized charges. I meet with Jon in-person. Jon acknowledges the administrative oversight, apologizes, and promises to get the charges refunded.
Emails to Jon — No Response
I email Jon twice checking on refund status. No response. Jon has apparently departed the location.
Escalation to District Manager
I email District Manager Laurie N., explaining the full situation and requesting resolution.
THE ADMISSION + Inadequate Partial Refund
Laurie N. responds: "Jon should not have set you up on a recurring package." She promises to refund "half of October and all of November."
Total refund: $766.04 (34% of $2,228.48 owed) — her "half" of October was only $208.92 (37.5%, not 50%)
My Response — Documenting the Discrepancy
That evening, I respond documenting the discrepancy between her stated refund and the actual amount processed. I request clarification on whether this limitation is systemic policy, discretionary, or directed by leadership. No response received.
She refunded less than she stated in her own email.
Second Follow-Up to Laurie — Silence
After receiving no response to my January 25th questions, I send Laurie a second email requesting resolution. Radio silence. No response ever received.
Actions Taken
Current Status: Active — Company has gone silent. Awaiting their response before escalating to regulatory complaints and arbitration.
Applicable Laws & Regulations
The conduct documented above may violate multiple federal and state consumer protection laws.
ROSCA
15 U.S.C. § 8403
The Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act requires sellers to:
- Clearly disclose material terms of negative option features
- Obtain express informed consent before charging
- Provide simple cancellation mechanisms
Violations constitute unfair/deceptive acts under FTC Act § 5(a). 15 U.S.C. § 8404(a)
Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act
ORS 646.608
Prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce, including:
- Representations that goods/services have characteristics they do not have
- Failing to deliver goods/services as promised
Private right of action allows recovery of actual damages, $200 statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. ORS 646.638
Unjust Enrichment
Common Law Doctrine
Elements established by this case:
- Benefit conferred: $2,228.48 paid to 24 Hour Fitness
- Appreciation of benefit: Company retained funds
- Unjust retention: Management admitted enrollment error
Fraud in the Inducement
Common Law + ORS 646.608(1)(e)
Elements supported by evidence:
- Misrepresentation: Jon promised to cancel recurring billing
- Intent: Enrollment structured for continued billing
- Reliance: Purchase made based on cancellation promise
- Damages: $1,462.44 in unreturned funds
Regarding the Integration Clause Defense
24 Hour Fitness's contract likely contains an "integration clause" (typically Section 5d) stating that verbal promises are not binding. However, this defense fails here for several reasons:
1. Management Admission
Laurie N.'s written admission that "Jon should not have set you up" this way acknowledges the impropriety regardless of contract terms.
2. Unconscionability
A contract term that allows employees to make false promises and then hide behind fine print may be procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
3. Public Policy
Oregon courts may decline to enforce contract provisions that would sanction fraud. See Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.
Is This Happening To You?
You're not alone. This case is why GotGrifted exists—to document, organize, and fight back against companies that profit from making refunds impossible.
Consumer Advocacy Notice
GotGrifted is an independent consumer advocacy website not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any company mentioned herein. Consumer criticism and factual reporting are protected speech under the First Amendment.
First Amendment
U.S. Const. amend. IRight to petition for redress of grievances. Consumer criticism is protected speech.
Consumer Review Fairness Act
15 U.S.C. § 45bFederal protection for honest reviews. Retaliation against truthful reviews is prohibited.
Nominative Fair Use
Lanham Act § 33(b)(4)Trademark use permitted for identification and criticism. You cannot criticize a company without naming it.
Anti-SLAPP Protection
Cal. Civ. Proc. § 425.16Frivolous lawsuits to silence critics face expedited dismissal and fee-shifting.
Established Precedent
Gripe sites don't create confusion—consumers distinguish criticism from official communications.
Trademark law cannot suppress legitimate commentary.
See also Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770 (6th Cir.)
Evidence & Accuracy
Every factual claim is supported by documented evidence: emails, bank statements, text messages, and sworn affidavits. Opinions are clearly identified as such.
Correction Policy: If any statement is inaccurate, 24 Hour Fitness is invited to provide specific corrections with supporting documentation. Verified errors will be promptly corrected.
Domain Dispute Notice
This domain is registered in good faith for legitimate criticism. Under ICANN's UDRP, legitimate criticism is a recognized legitimate interest and defeats bad-faith claims. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. McCauley, WIPO D2004-0014.
This site documents a consumer complaint and does not constitute legal advice. Opinions are the author's own. Trademarks used under nominative fair use. 24 Hour Fitness is welcome to resolve the $1,462.44 dispute.
Document Preservation Notice
24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC is hereby notified to preserve all documents, communications, and records relating to Member ID MBR15140325 and the McLoughlin location (Portland, OR) for the period July 2025 through present.