Price increase
via
turnstile.
Price increase
via
turnstile.
of
Can a gym consider a member’s mere entry into the facility as consent to higher membership fees? And is the franchise headquarters liable if its partner gyms attempt to do just that? The Munich Higher Regional Court classified the price increase enforced via a turnstile as an aggressive business practice and ruled against the company on both questions.
A notice posted on the turnstile
clever fit GmbH operates a chain of fitness centers under the clever fit trademark as a franchisor. In a limited number of its franchisees’ locations, a notice with the heading “Important Information” was posted at the entrance. In the notice, the gyms announced that they would be increasing the monthly membership fee by 8 euros per month—or 96 euros per year—effective September 1, 2022. This applied to both new and existing customers. Among other reasons, the notice cited rising energy and personnel costs.
The key sentence came at the end. Members were to give their consent simply by passing through the turnstile. However, anyone who wanted to work out was required to go through that turnstile.
The Federal Association of Consumer Organizations subsequently filed a cease-and-desist action against the franchisor and prevailed in the Augsburg Regional Court.
What the parties were disputing
clever fit challenged the ruling in its entirety. The company argued that the provision regarding continued training had no legal basis. The members would have been able to continue using the gym anyway, for legal reasons, without having to accept the price increase.
Furthermore, clever fit did not consider itself the proper defendant. The issue concerned price increases by individual franchisees under their own contracts. For antitrust reasons alone, the corporate headquarters was not permitted to influence these prices or the terms and conditions used. The consumer association defended the regional court’s ruling.
The Munich Higher Regional Court upholds the injunction
Inits decision dated September 3, 2026 ( , Case No. 29 U 4043/23 e), the Higher Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Regional Court’s injunction.
Why is the price increase based on the turnstile system considered aggressive?
Competition law prohibits aggressive business practices. One such practice is improper influence. This occurs when a company exploits a position of power to exert pressure, thereby significantly limiting the customer’s ability to make an informed decision. Violence or threats are not required for this to occur.
In the court’s view, such a position of power could also arise from technical circumstances within an existing contract. The requirements should not be set too high in light of the European Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices. This was precisely the point the court addressed. The studios had sought to attach an explanatory significance to the mere use of the service owed. Anyone who passed through the turnstile was thereby deemed to have agreed to the price increase.
The contractor’s contractual partner is thus faced with the choice of either accepting a price increase or other changes to the terms and conditions—without which the contractor can no longer provide the service owed under the contract—or forgoing the service.
Anyone who doesn’t give in will be at a disadvantage because they won’t be able to enter the gym or work out. Their freedom to make decisions is also significantly restricted. Members would be confronted with the price increase right at the turnstile, just as they were about to work out. There, they would have little opportunity to learn about their rights or about continuing their membership at the old price.
Does it depend on whether the consent would be valid?
No, at least not under competition law. clever fit had specifically argued that members would have been legally permitted to continue working out even without consent. In the court’s view, this argument fails to recognize that what matters is the perspective of the average gym member standing in front of the notice. That member would interpret the notice to mean that they could either give consent or forgo their workout. Objective legal considerations are irrelevant in this context.
Is the franchise headquarters also liable?
Yes. Under competition law, a company is also liable for violations committed by its agents and cannot exonerate itself. According to the court, even independent franchisees could be considered such agents. The studios are integrated into the franchise system. The success of the price increase would also have benefited the corporate headquarters because it collects revenue-based franchise fees.
The court did not accept the antitrust objection. The issue was not the pricing, but rather the posted notice, which was used to put pressure on the members. Headquarters should have ensured it had sufficient influence over this public image. clever fit itself did not dispute that it contractually dictated or influenced the public image of the franchise studios.
What does this mean for subscription and membership models?
The ruling concerns an individual case but fits into a discernible pattern. The Munich Higher Regional Court itself cites a decision by the Bamberg Regional Court regarding a membership fee increase at a fitness center and a decision by the Düsseldorf Regional Court regarding a pop-up window in online banking. The court cites both cases to support the idea that companies can exert pressure within existing contracts when the service is accessed—for example, to obtain consent to a price increase. Our article on advertising showers at fitness centers shows that fitness centers are also vulnerable to competition law challenges in other contexts.
In our view, this standard can be applied to digital offerings. Possible examples include apps, streaming services, or software subscriptions that block access until the customer agrees to the new prices. Under the ruling, franchisors and chain store systems cannot simply dismiss their partners’ communication measures as solely their partners’ business.
Conclusion
The ruling was entirely predictable. What stands out above all is the focus on the customer standing in front of the turnstile rather than on the abstract legal situation. Anyone who exerts pressure cannot claim that the pressure would have had no legal effect.
It remains unclear, however, what a valid arrangement would look like. The court emphasizes that the members were unable to obtain sufficient information at the turnstile. The ruling does not address whether an earlier notice, allowing time for consideration, followed by explicit consent at another location, would have been sufficient.
This also creates a conflict for franchisors. They are expected to control the communication of price increases but are not allowed to set the prices themselves. The court resolves this by distinguishing between the price and the posted notice. In practice, however, it is not always possible to clearly separate pricing decisions from their implementation as they are communicated to customers.
We’d be happy to
advise you on
Competition law!
