Boston Sports Club COVID Fees Settlement: Possible Refunds for Missed Services

The Boston Sports Club COVID Fees Settlement: Possible Refunds for Missed Services settlement to eligible claimants who must be a resident of massachusetts. The deadline to file is June 16, 2026. Proof of purchase is required.
Deadline: June 16, 2026
Total amount allocated for all claims
Estimated amount per eligible claim
Yes—claimants must provide proof supporting that they are a Massachusetts resident who was billed by Boston Sports Club during the COVID-19 pandemic for services that were not provided.
Settlement Summary
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many fitness centers—including Boston Sports Club—restricted access, paused operations, or otherwise limited services as governments issued public health orders. According to the settlement notice for the “Boston Sports Club COVID Fees Class Action Settlement,” people who were billed while Massachusetts residents and who say they paid for membership or services that were not actually provided may be eligible for a refund. In other words, the case focuses on whether customers were charged during the shutdown period for membership access or related services that were effectively unavailable. The lawsuit was filed as a class action to address alleged unfair billing practices affecting large numbers of members, pooling claims so individuals could seek relief without pursuing separate suits. Its significance lies in the potential for refunds—though not automatic for everyone—because the settlement generally requires claimants to submit proof by a stated deadline (noted as 6/16/26) to participate. The broader implication is a reminder to the fitness and health-club industry that pandemic-related disruptions did not necessarily excuse billing disputes, especially when consumers argue they were not receiving the services for which they paid. Industry context matters: fitness clubs are typically governed by consumer protection principles and, in Massachusetts, by state laws that restrict deceptive or unfair business practices, as well as general contract and billing expectations between businesses and members. Similar cases emerged nationwide as consumers challenged how companies handled membership dues, cancellation requests, and continued charges during closures—often leading to settlements that required documentation and established timelines for claims. If you were billed in Massachusetts for services Boston Sports Club allegedly did not provide during COVID, you may want to review the settlement requirements and prepare any records that show the charges and missing services, since the settlement process is designed to deliver possible refunds to eligible members who can meet the proof standards.
Entities Involved
Related Topics
Eligibility Requirements
- Must be a resident of Massachusetts
- Must have been billed by Boston Sports Club during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Services billed for must have been not provided
Featured Investigations
Stay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.
Important Notice About Filing Claims
Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.
If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.
Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.
Related Settlements
Absolute Dental Group $3.3 Million Settlement for 2025 Data Breach Losses
Absolute Dental Group LLC agreed to pay a $3.3 million class action settlement over a potential 2025 data breach affecting consumers’ personal information. The incident occurred between Feb. 19, 2025 and March 5, 2025, when unauthorized access may have exposed data. Eligible U.S. residents who received notice from Absolute Dental about the incident may claim up to $5,000 for documented losses and may also receive a pro rata cash payment, with certain California residents eligible for an enhanced amount.
Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions
A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.
MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice
California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.
MetLife $1.2 Million Settlement for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offsets in New Mexico
Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (MetLife) agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it misrepresented or failed to disclose underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage limits and used improper offsets. The issue relates to New Mexico auto insurance activity between Oct. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2022. Eligible class members include qualifying policyholders who had UM/UIM claim offsets by at-fault payments or who purchased UM/UIM coverage in that period.
