EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A creditor is facing a claim of violating New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act and a collection law firm is facing a claim of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act over failing to cancel a consumer’s gym membership and subsequently trying to collect on additional fees which were not part of the original agreement.
The background: The two plaintiffs joined a gym in July 2024. In May 2025, the plaintiffs canceled their memberships, according to the complaint. One of the cancellations was processed, but the other was not.
- The plaintiffs made visits to the facility, emailed the corporate office, and waited two hours to speak with a manager who allegedly refused to help, according to the complaint.
- The creditor continued to bill the plaintiff until December 2025.
- In February 2026, the collection law firm sent the plaintiff a letter attempting to recovery $2,039.85, including fees of $407.97. The fees were “completely incidental” to the agreement and were assessed by the law firm “in order to coerce Plaintiffs into cooperating” with the defendant’s collection efforts “to avoid being charged additional fees,” according to the complaint.
- The defendants’ actions caused the plaintiffs not to be able to purchase and benefit from credit, suffer mental and emotional distress, unnecessarily expose them to the threat of litigation, and interfere with their usual daily activities, resulting in frustration and exhaustion that interfered with one plaintiff’s ability to heal from a stroke and exacerbate his disabilities, according to the complaint.
The claims: The collection law firm is accused of violating Sections 1692d, 1692e(2), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692f(1) of the FDCPA. The complaint does not provide specific details regarding how the defendant violated each of those sections of the statute.
- The creditor is accused of violating New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.
