Gym, Coaching, and Subscription Scam Demand Letters: Getting Out of Predatory Contracts
The contract seemed reasonable when you signed it. A gym membership to get in shape, a business coaching program that promised to transform your income, or a software subscription with a free trial. But now, months later, you are trapped in a billing cycle you cannot escape. The gym requires you to cancel in person during business hours you cannot make. The coaching program that promised personalized mentoring delivered only pre-recorded videos and a Facebook group, and the “no refunds” policy appears only after you paid $15,000. The subscription you thought you canceled keeps charging your card, and the company’s customer service line disconnects every time you call.
These patterns are not accidents. They are business models built on contract terms designed to make it as difficult as possible to stop paying. The good news is that federal and state consumer protection laws, particularly those governing automatic renewals and negative-option sales, give consumers significant rights that many businesses routinely violate. When a company’s cancellation obstacles or deceptive enrollment practices cross legal lines, a well-drafted demand letter that cites specific statutes and recent enforcement actions can create enough pressure to get you out of the contract and potentially recover past charges.
This article explains the legal framework for challenging gym memberships, high-ticket coaching and online courses, and subscription traps, and how to structure demand letters that leverage recent regulatory crackdowns to force companies to let you go.
The Predatory Contract Playbook
Businesses that rely on consumer inertia and cancellation friction follow recognizable patterns. Understanding these patterns helps identify which legal protections apply and what leverage you have in a demand letter.
The gym membership model traditionally involved long-term contracts, substantial initiation fees, and cancellation processes that required in-person visits during limited hours, manager approval, or mailed forms that mysteriously never got processed. Many gyms also sold memberships for locations that had not yet opened, collecting monthly fees during construction delays or, in some cases, for facilities that never materialized. The addition of “training packages” and other services that auto-renew separately from the base membership created layers of billing that members struggled to untangle.
The Federal Trade Commission’s August 2025 lawsuit against LA Fitness illustrates the problem. The complaint alleges that LA Fitness made it “exceedingly hard” to cancel memberships by requiring cancellation either in person at the club or by certified mail, hiding cancellation forms from staff and members, continuing to bill consumers even after their banks blocked charges, and making the cancellation process so burdensome that consumers gave up and continued paying rather than fight through the obstacles. The FTC estimates hundreds of millions of dollars in unwanted charges resulted from these practices.
High-ticket coaching and online business programs use a different but equally effective trap. The sales funnel typically begins with a free webinar or “training” that delivers genuine value, building trust and positioning the seller as an expert. This leads to a “strategy call” or “breakthrough session” where a sales representative conducts an intensive close, often using scarcity tactics: “we only have three spots left at this price,” “the program closes tonight,” or “if you don’t invest in yourself now, you’ll be in the same place next year.” The actual coaching program is presented with income claims, testimonials from successful students, and promises of personalized support and accountability.
After payment, often $5,000 to $30,000 charged to credit cards or financed through third-party lenders, the program turns out to be pre-recorded videos, generic worksheets, and a private Facebook group with minimal instructor involvement. The promised one-on-one coaching calls never materialize, or are limited to brief group calls with dozens of other students. When the buyer complains, the company points to fine print stating “results not guaranteed” or “no refunds after accessing course materials,” even though the sales presentation explicitly promised guaranteed results or a money-back guarantee.
The FTC has been actively pursuing these schemes. In 2023, the agency sued Lurn, Inc. for deceptive income claims related to online business coaching, ultimately obtaining an order and distributing more than $2.4 million in refunds to consumers in 2024. In January 2025, the FTC sent nearly $1 million in refunds to consumers harmed by The Sales Mentor’s deceptive telemarketing training program. Real estate investment training schemes generated more than $10 million in FTC-ordered refunds in 2024. The pattern across these cases is consistent: grandiose income promises during the sales process that bear no relationship to typical participant outcomes, combined with aggressive no-refund policies that leave consumers with nothing when the program fails to deliver.
Subscription and auto-renewal traps work through dark patterns in the enrollment flow. The free trial converts to paid subscription automatically, with the conversion disclosure buried in small print or placed after the user has already entered payment information. The signup is online through a simple form, but cancellation requires calling a phone number during limited hours, mailing a certified letter, or navigating a deliberately confusing account settings interface. Some companies require users to speak with a “retention specialist” who is trained to talk customers out of canceling, making the process so uncomfortable that people give up.
The FTC has been increasingly aggressive about these practices. In October 2024, the agency announced an amended Negative Option Rule requiring that cancellation be as easy as signup, a principle known as “click to cancel.” Although parts of the rule face legal challenges and the compliance date has been pushed to July 2025, the FTC has made clear it will continue enforcing the underlying principles using its existing authority under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Federal Law on Automatic Renewals and Negative Options
The federal legal framework for challenging subscription traps and automatic renewals rests primarily on the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, known as ROSCA, enacted in 2010 and codified at 15 U.S.C. sections 8401 through 8405. ROSCA governs online negative-option sales, which include free trials that automatically convert to paid subscriptions, recurring billing arrangements, and continuity programs where goods or services are provided periodically unless the consumer cancels.
ROSCA imposes three core requirements. First, before obtaining the consumer’s billing information, the seller must clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms of the transaction, including the fact that the consumer will be charged, the amount of the charge, the frequency of the charges, and the cancellation policy. These disclosures must be presented in a way that consumers cannot miss them, not buried in lengthy terms of service or placed after the payment information has been submitted.
Second, the seller must obtain the consumer’s express informed consent before charging the consumer’s account. This means the consumer must affirmatively agree to the charges after being presented with the required disclosures. Preselected checkboxes, opt-out mechanisms, and other tactics that assume consent rather than requiring it violate ROSCA.
Third, the seller must provide simple mechanisms for consumers to stop recurring charges. The cancellation process must be reasonable and accessible, and the company cannot create unreasonable obstacles that make cancellation difficult or impossible in practice.
The FTC enforces ROSCA aggressively and often pairs ROSCA violations with claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In its 2021 Enforcement Policy Statement on Negative Options, the FTC consolidated its approach across various statutory authorities and made clear that it views difficult cancellation processes, hidden terms, and opt-out schemes as violations warranting enforcement.
The FTC’s October 2024 click-to-cancel rule builds on ROSCA by requiring that if enrollment happens online through a website or app, cancellation must be available through the same medium, with equivalent ease. The rule would prohibit companies from allowing online signup but requiring phone calls or mailed forms to cancel. While the rule’s implementation has been delayed and challenged, the underlying principle has been part of FTC enforcement for years and gives consumers a strong argument in demand letters: if you could sign up in two clicks, requiring a phone call, certified letter, or in-person visit to cancel likely violates federal consumer protection standards.
The LA Fitness enforcement action in August 2025 demonstrates how the FTC uses these authorities. The complaint alleges that LA Fitness’s practices violated both Section 5 of the FTC Act as unfair practices and the negative-option principles the FTC enforces. Even though the rule is not yet in effect, the agency is using its existing authority to challenge the same conduct the rule would prohibit.
For high-ticket coaching and business opportunity programs, the FTC has a separate set of enforcement priorities. The agency’s consumer guidance on business coaching scams lists red flags including guaranteed income claims, “proven systems” that promise easy success, high-pressure sales tactics that create artificial urgency, and no meaningful refund policies. Recent enforcement actions against Lurn, The Sales Mentor, and multiple real estate investment training schemes show that the FTC treats deceptive earnings claims in coaching programs as seriously as it treats outright fraud.
In January 2025, the FTC proposed amendments to the Business Opportunity Rule and a new Earnings Claim Rule specifically targeting deceptive earnings claims in multilevel marketing operations and “money-making opportunities,” which includes business coaching. The proposed rule would require substantiation for earnings claims, mandate disclosure of typical participant outcomes rather than cherry-picked success stories, and prohibit the “rags to riches” presentations that dominate high-ticket coaching sales funnels. While these rules are still in the proposal stage, they signal that the regulatory environment is becoming increasingly hostile to the practices that define the high-ticket coaching industry.
California Consumer Protections: Automatic Renewals and Health Clubs
California provides some of the strongest consumer protections in the country for automatic renewal contracts and gym memberships, often going beyond federal requirements. These state-law protections give California residents additional leverage in demand letters and provide models that other states increasingly follow.
California’s Automatic Renewal Law, often called CARL, is codified in Business and Professions Code sections 17600 through 17606. The statute requires businesses offering automatic renewal or continuous service arrangements to clearly and conspicuously disclose the automatic renewal terms before the subscription or contract is entered into. This disclosure must include the fact that the service will automatically renew unless the consumer cancels, the length of the renewal period, and the cancellation policy.
The law also requires that the business obtain the consumer’s affirmative consent to the automatic renewal terms and that this consent be obtained separately from any other portion of the agreement. Companies cannot bury automatic renewal consent in a block of general terms and conditions. After enrollment, the business must provide an acknowledgment that includes the terms of the automatic renewal, the cancellation policy, and information on how to cancel.
For free trials or promotional periods that automatically convert to paid subscriptions, CARL requires clear disclosure that the trial will convert, the amount that will be charged when it converts, and how to cancel before the charge occurs. The cancellation mechanism must be easy to use, and if the subscription was entered into online, cancellation must be available online through a prominently located direct link or button.
Recent amendments in 2024 through Assembly Bill 2863 and additional updates in 2025 have tightened these requirements. The amendments prohibit contract language that undermines the requirement of affirmative consent, extend coverage to ensure free trials are clearly regulated, and require businesses to retain proof of consumer consent for at least three years or one year after contract termination, whichever is longer. These amendments make it increasingly difficult for companies to claim compliance when they rely on opt-out mechanisms or obscure disclosures.
CARL violations create private rights of action, meaning individual consumers can sue for violations. More importantly for demand letter purposes, systematic violations can trigger enforcement by the California Attorney General and district attorneys, and businesses face substantial civil penalties for noncompliance. A demand letter that cites specific CARL provisions, identifies how the business violated each requirement, and threatens to report the violations to the Attorney General often produces faster results than a letter that relies only on general breach of contract claims.
California’s Health Studio Services Contract Law provides targeted protections for gym and fitness center contracts. The law, found in Civil Code sections 1812.80 through 1812.97, applies to contracts for health studio services, which includes gyms, health clubs, fitness centers, and similar facilities. The statute imposes several requirements designed to protect consumers from the long-term contracts and aggressive sales tactics common in the fitness industry.
Most importantly, the law provides a five-day cooling-off period during which consumers can cancel health studio contracts without penalty. The cancellation notice must be in a specific form prescribed by statute, and businesses that fail to include the proper statutory language in their contracts have not effectively limited the cancellation right. The statute provides model language that must be included in at least ten-point type, in a form substantially similar to the statutory text.
The law also gives consumers additional cancellation rights if the facility has not opened within six months of the contract date, if the facility fails to provide the facilities and services advertised, or if the facility moves to a location more than five miles from the original location or a location less convenient to the consumer. In these situations, the consumer can cancel and receive a pro rata refund of prepaid fees.
The statute limits contract terms and initial fees, requires specific disclosures about the consumer’s rights, and provides special protections in the event of the health studio’s bankruptcy or closure. Consumers who move more than twenty-five miles from the facility are also entitled to cancel with pro rata refund of unused services.
For demand letter purposes, California’s health club law provides multiple statutory hooks that go well beyond arguing about general contract interpretation. If the gym’s contract does not include the mandatory statutory cancellation notice, if the gym is imposing cancellation procedures not authorized by statute, if the gym is charging fees after the consumer properly canceled during the cooling-off period, or if the gym is refusing refunds in situations where statute requires them, those are specific violations that can be cited with statutory section numbers and threat of regulatory complaints.
Los Angeles County’s Department of Consumer and Business Affairs maintains a public guide listing various statutory cooling-off periods under California law, including the five-day right for gym contracts, three-day rights for door-to-door sales, and five-day rights for certain vocational courses. This guide provides plain-language summaries that consumers can use to understand their rights and that can be referenced in demand letters to show that the claims are based on established statutory protections, not aggressive interpretation.
High-Ticket Coaching: Where Income Claims Become Fraud
The high-ticket coaching industry presents unique legal issues because the core of the transaction is not a concrete product but rather the promise of results, usually financial results. When those results do not materialize and the consumer discovers that the program was nowhere near what was presented during the sales process, the gap between promise and delivery can support fraud claims, unfair practice claims, and contract rescission demands.
The typical fact pattern involves a sales funnel that begins with content marketing: blog posts, YouTube videos, podcasts, or social media that establish the seller’s authority in a particular area such as online business, real estate investment, stock trading, or professional coaching. The free content leads to a webinar or “masterclass” that provides valuable information but leaves key details vague, setting up the next step.
The webinar pitch positions the paid program as the complete solution and creates urgency through scarcity. The pitch often includes income testimonials from successful students, screenshots of earnings, and claims about the “proven system” that will replicate those results. The close involves a “strategy call” or “breakthrough session” where a sales representative applies high-pressure tactics, asking the prospect about their financial struggles, their dreams for their family, and whether they are truly committed to changing their situation. The call often includes payment plan options and financing to remove the immediate pain of the large price tag.
After payment, the consumer receives access to a course portal with pre-recorded videos. The promised personalized coaching turns out to be group calls with dozens of other students or brief email responses to questions submitted through a form. The private Facebook group is active but dominated by complaints from other students who are also not seeing results. Requests for refunds are met with references to a no-refund policy that the consumer does not remember seeing before payment, and the company stops responding to escalated complaints.
This fact pattern maps onto multiple legal theories. The most straightforward is fraud or intentional misrepresentation. Common law fraud requires proof that the defendant made a false statement of material fact, knew it was false or made it with reckless disregard for the truth, intended the plaintiff to rely on the statement, and that the plaintiff justifiably relied on it and suffered damages as a result.
In coaching scams, the false statements typically involve income claims and the level of personal support. If the sales presentation stated that “our students average $10,000 per month in their first six months” when the reality is that the vast majority of students make nothing and only a tiny percentage earn significant income, that is a false statement of material fact. If the sales materials promised “weekly one-on-one calls with your assigned coach” when the program only provides access to group calls and email support, that is a misrepresentation of material fact.
The FTC’s enforcement actions provide powerful support for these claims. In the Lurn case, the FTC alleged that the defendants made deceptive income claims that were not supported by evidence and that the defendants knew or should have known did not represent typical consumer experiences. The settlement included an order prohibiting future misrepresentations and required refunds. In demand letters, citing the Lurn case and other recent FTC actions against coaching schemes provides evidence that regulators view these practices as fraud, not aggressive marketing.
The FTC’s proposed Earnings Claim Rule, announced in January 2025, would formalize many of these principles. The proposed rule would require that any earnings claim be substantiated with evidence, that companies disclose typical earnings rather than cherry-picked success stories, and that companies avoid “rags to riches” presentations that imply easy success. While the rule is not yet in effect, its existence shows that regulatory scrutiny of coaching industry earnings claims is intensifying, and that provides additional leverage in demand letters.
Beyond fraud, many states have consumer protection statutes that prohibit unfair or deceptive trade practices. In California, the Unfair Competition Law prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act provides a list of specific practices that are prohibited, including misrepresenting the characteristics or benefits of goods or services and advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. High-ticket coaching programs that promise personalized mentoring and deliver only generic videos likely violate these statutes.
Contract rescission is another remedy. When a contract is induced by fraud or misrepresentation, the defrauded party can seek rescission, which means the contract is canceled and both parties are returned to their original positions. For coaching contracts, this means a full refund in exchange for surrendering access to the course materials. Rescission is often more attractive than suing for damages because it is a simpler remedy that does not require proving the exact amount of harm.
Unconscionability is a contract defense that applies when the contract terms are so one-sided and oppressive that no reasonable person would agree to them, particularly when there is unequal bargaining power or lack of meaningful choice. In California, unconscionability has both procedural and substantive elements. Procedural unconscionability involves the circumstances of contract formation, such as high-pressure tactics, lack of opportunity to review terms, and disparities in sophistication. Substantive unconscionability involves terms that are unreasonably favorable to one party, such as mandatory nonrefundable fees vastly disproportionate to any legitimate business need.
A coaching contract signed during a high-pressure sales call, with payment due immediately and no opportunity to review materials, supported by financing at high interest rates, and containing a blanket no-refund clause regardless of the company’s failure to deliver promised services, likely contains both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Courts are particularly skeptical of no-refund clauses when the seller has misrepresented what the buyer will receive, because allowing the seller to keep the money after failing to deliver is unjust enrichment.
Building Your Evidence File
Demand letters in these contexts require more than simply saying you want out of the contract. You need to document the gap between what was promised and what was delivered, the specific legal violations, and your good-faith attempts to resolve the situation before resorting to formal demand.
For gym and fitness center contracts, the evidence file should start with a complete copy of the contract itself, including any attachments, addenda, or supplemental agreements. It is critical to have the version that was actually signed, not a later version that the company might have substituted. If the contract does not include the five-day cancellation notice required by California law or if the notice does not match the statutory language, that is a violation you can cite specifically.
Document the facility’s condition and services when you signed up and at relevant times afterward. If the gym was not yet open when you signed, note the date you signed and when the gym eventually opened, if ever. If amenities that were promised such as pool, sauna, or specific classes are not available or are frequently closed, document that with dated photographs, testimony from staff, or correspondence where the gym acknowledged the issues.
Your cancellation attempts are the most critical part of the file. For every attempt to cancel, document the date, the method used, whom you spoke with if applicable, what you were told, and the outcome. If you tried to cancel in person but were told you needed to mail a form, keep records of that conversation. If you mailed a cancellation form by certified mail, keep the tracking receipt and delivery confirmation. If you called and were put on hold indefinitely or transferred repeatedly until you gave up, note the dates, times, and phone numbers. If you tried to cancel online but there was no cancellation option in your account settings, take screenshots showing the account interface and the absence of a cancel button.
Bank and credit card statements showing continued charges after your cancellation attempts are essential. Highlight the charges, note the dates, and calculate the total amount charged after you first attempted to cancel.
For high-ticket coaching and course disputes, the evidence file must capture the entire sales funnel because that is where the misrepresentations occurred. Save every email you received from the company. Screenshot the webinar registration page, the webinar replay if available, and any bonus or incentive pages. If the webinar included income claims, specific promises about deliverables, or testimonials, capture those with screenshots or screen recordings.
If the sales call was recorded, obtain that recording. Many coaching companies record strategy calls and state at the beginning of the call that it is being recorded for quality assurance or training purposes. Request a copy of your call recording before sending the demand letter, because the company may delete it once you make a formal complaint. If the company refuses to provide the recording or claims it no longer exists, note that in your demand letter, as destruction of evidence can support sanctions in litigation.
Compare the contract or terms of service you ultimately agreed to against the promises made during the sales process. If the sales materials promised weekly one-on-one coaching calls and the contract says only “access to group coaching,” that discrepancy is central to your case. If the webinar claimed “guaranteed results” or “risk-free” enrollment but the contract includes a no-refund clause and disclaimer of all guarantees, that contradiction supports fraud or unconscionability claims.
Document what you actually received from the program. Log into the course portal and screenshot the curriculum showing what modules are available. Note whether materials are comprehensive or cursory, whether promised resources exist, and whether personalized elements like assigned coaches or individualized feedback actually materialized. If the private Facebook group is part of the program, screenshot posts from other members expressing similar disappointment or complaints about lack of support.
Save all communications with the company after enrollment. This includes support tickets, email exchanges, and direct messages to coaches or support staff. If you complained about the quality of the program or asked for refunds and were ignored or denied, those communications establish that you made good-faith efforts to work with the company before sending a demand letter.
For subscription and auto-renewal disputes, the critical evidence is the signup flow and cancellation obstacles. Before your subscription ends, take screenshots of the entire enrollment process. Start from the landing page, capture each form or screen where information is entered, and note where disclosures about automatic renewal, trial conversion, or ongoing charges appear, if they appear at all. Specifically screenshot whether there were prechecked boxes that agreed to terms, whether renewal terms were disclosed before payment information was entered, and whether you were required to affirmatively consent to automatic renewal or whether consent was assumed.
Save the confirmation email and any welcome messages. Check whether these emails included the automatic renewal terms, the cancellation policy, and instructions for how to cancel. If the required disclosures were missing from the confirmation email, that is a CARL or ROSCA violation you can cite specifically.
When you attempt to cancel, document every step. If the website has a cancel option, screenshot the account settings showing the button or link. If the cancellation process includes multiple screens designed to discourage cancellation, such as pages asking “Are you sure?” or offering discounts to stay, capture those. If there is no online cancellation option, screenshot the account interface showing the lack of such an option. If you are directed to call a phone number, call it and document what happens: whether you reach a person, how long you wait on hold, what the person says, and whether they actually process the cancellation or try to retain you. Follow up any phone cancellation with an email confirming that you requested cancellation on that date.
If the company continues to charge you after you canceled, the credit card or bank statements showing those charges become the basis for your refund demand. Calculate the total amount charged after the date you first attempted to cancel, as that is the amount you should demand back.
Strategy for Gym Membership Demand Letters
Gym membership disputes tend to be smaller in dollar amount than coaching scams but are often easier to win because California’s Health Studio Services Contract Law provides clear statutory rights that many gyms violate routinely.
The structure of a gym demand letter should begin by identifying yourself as the member, referencing the specific contract by date and account number, and stating that you are seeking to cancel the membership and obtain a refund of charges improperly assessed after cancellation. If you are a California consumer and the gym is in California, cite the California Health Studio Services Contract Law by name and reference Civil Code sections 1812.80 through 1812.97.
The factual section should walk through when you signed the contract, how you were enrolled, what terms were presented to you at signup, and what happened afterward. If the facility was not yet open when you signed, state that and explain how much you paid before the facility opened or if it never opened at all. If the facility failed to provide advertised amenities or services, describe what was promised and what you found when you tried to use the gym.
Next, describe your cancellation attempts chronologically. For each attempt, state the date, the method, what you were told or what happened, and the result. If you tried to cancel online and found no option, say so. If you called and were told you had to come in person but you went to the gym during business hours and staff could not find the cancellation form or told you the manager was not available to process it, describe that experience in detail. If you mailed a cancellation form by certified mail and the gym continued charging you anyway, provide the tracking number and delivery confirmation.
The legal section should cite the specific statutory provisions that the gym violated. If the contract does not include the required five-day cancellation notice in the form prescribed by statute, state that and quote Civil Code section 1812.85, which requires the notice. If the gym is imposing cancellation procedures not authorized by the statute, such as requiring in-person cancellation when statute allows written cancellation, cite that violation. If you moved more than twenty-five miles from the gym or the gym moved more than five miles or to a less convenient location, cite the cancellation and refund rights that statute provides in those circumstances.
If the gym’s cancellation procedures violate ROSCA or federal negative-option principles, cite the FTC’s LA Fitness enforcement action. State that in August 2025, the FTC sued LA Fitness for making cancellation exceedingly difficult through in-person-only requirements, hidden forms, and continued billing despite cancellation attempts, and that the practices your gym is using are materially identical to those the FTC challenged. This connection to active federal enforcement gives the gym reason to take your complaint seriously, particularly if the gym has multiple locations and could face systemwide regulatory scrutiny.
The demand should be specific and reasonable. Request that the gym immediately confirm cancellation effective as of the date you first attempted to cancel, cease all further charges, and refund all amounts charged from that date forward. Include the total dollar amount of the refund you are requesting and attach copies of bank statements showing the charges.
Offer a short deadline, typically ten to fourteen days, and explain the consequences of nonresponse. State that if the matter is not resolved, you will file a complaint with the California Attorney General, the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs if applicable, and the Federal Trade Commission, and will consider pursuing claims in small claims court for the refund plus statutory damages and attorney fees to the extent allowed by law.
California’s consumer protection statutes often allow prevailing plaintiffs to recover attorney fees, which means that even though the gym membership charges may be modest, the gym faces potential fee exposure if it forces you to litigate. Reference this specifically: “California law allows consumers who prevail in actions under the Health Studio Services Contract Law to recover attorney fees, meaning that even though the amount at issue is $X, your exposure if I am forced to file suit could be substantially greater once fees and costs are added.”
End the letter by reserving all rights and providing clear contact information for the gym to respond to. Specify whether you prefer email or postal mail responses and give your phone number if you are willing to discuss resolution by phone.
Strategy for High-Ticket Coaching Demand Letters
High-ticket coaching demand letters involve larger dollar amounts and more complex legal theories than gym disputes, but they also often involve clear fraud or misrepresentation that makes the company’s position difficult to defend.
Start the letter by identifying yourself, the coaching program you purchased, the date of purchase, and the amount paid. State clearly that you are seeking rescission of the contract and a full refund based on material misrepresentations during the sales process and the company’s failure to deliver what was promised.
The factual section is where you reconstruct the entire sales funnel to show the gap between promise and reality. Describe how you first encountered the company, whether through advertising, content marketing, or referral. Explain the webinar or masterclass that led to the strategy call, and describe the claims that were made during that presentation. Be specific: if the webinar stated that “students following our system average $15,000 per month” or showed a testimonial from someone who “went from zero to six figures in 90 days,” quote those claims and reference the screenshots or recordings you have preserved.
Describe the strategy call in detail. Explain the sales tactics used, the timeline pressure applied, the way payment was handled, and what specific promises the sales representative made. If the representative promised weekly one-on-one calls, guaranteed results, or specific deliverables, state those promises explicitly. Note whether you were given time to review the written contract before signing, whether the contract was presented before or after payment, and whether the contract terms differed from what was promised verbally.
Then describe what you actually received. Explain that the “coaching program” consisted primarily or entirely of pre-recorded videos, that the promised one-on-one calls never materialized or were limited to brief group sessions with dozens of other students, that the “personalized support” was generic email responses or no responses at all, and that the program failed to deliver the results or even the structure that was promised. If other students in the Facebook group or community expressed similar complaints, reference that pattern as evidence that your experience was not unique but rather reflects systemic misrepresentation.
The legal analysis section should invoke fraud or intentional misrepresentation first because it is the strongest claim when the facts support it. State the elements: the company made false statements of material fact regarding income potential and program deliverables, knew or should have known these statements were false, intended you to rely on them to induce payment, you justifiably relied on them, and you suffered damage measured by the amount you paid for a program that did not deliver what was promised.
Cite the FTC’s recent enforcement actions against coaching schemes by name. Mention Lurn, The Sales Mentor, and the real estate training cases, and explain that these cases demonstrate that federal regulators treat deceptive income claims in coaching programs as fraud subject to enforcement and refund orders. State that the pattern of conduct in those cases is materially identical to the conduct you experienced, which exposes the company to similar regulatory action and potential civil liability.
Reference the FTC’s proposed Earnings Claim Rule and explain that regulators are moving toward requiring substantiation of income claims and disclosure of typical participant results. State that the company’s failure to disclose that the vast majority of participants do not achieve the results featured in testimonials is a violation of emerging regulatory standards and long-standing fraud principles.
If you are a California resident or the company is based in California, cite California’s consumer protection statutes, particularly the Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Explain that misrepresenting the characteristics, benefits, or qualities of goods or services, and advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, are prohibited practices that can result in private lawsuits, civil penalties, and attorney fee awards.
Invoke unconscionability if the facts support it. Explain that the contract was entered into under high-pressure circumstances, without opportunity to review terms, and contains terms such as mandatory nonrefundable fees that are unconscionably one-sided, particularly in light of the misrepresentations that induced you to sign. Cite California Civil Code section 1670.5, which allows courts to refuse to enforce unconscionable contracts or provisions.
The demand should be for full rescission and refund. State that you are demanding the full amount you paid, itemized by date and payment method if there were multiple payments, and that you are willing to surrender access to the course portal and materials in exchange for the refund. Specify that the refund must be made within fourteen days and provide wire transfer or check payment instructions.
Address the company’s likely defense, which is the no-refund policy in the contract. Explain that no-refund clauses are not enforceable when the contract was induced by fraud, when the company failed to deliver what was promised, or when the clause is unconscionable. State that the company cannot misrepresent a product during the sales process and then hide behind fine print to avoid giving refunds when customers discover the truth.
Make clear that if the company does not refund voluntarily, you will file complaints with the FTC, your state attorney general, and any relevant professional licensing boards if the coaching involved regulated professions. State that you will pursue claims in court for fraud, violation of consumer protection statutes, and rescission, and that you will seek to join or initiate class actions if other consumers have been similarly defrauded. Reference the fact that many coaching companies are the subject of existing class actions or regulatory investigations, and that your complaint will add to the pressure those companies already face.
Finally, if the company’s refund terms stated “satisfaction guarantee” or “risk-free” enrollment during the sales process but the contract says no refunds, point out that discrepancy directly and argue that the company is estopped from enforcing the written no-refund policy when it contradicts explicit oral representations.
Strategy for Subscription and Auto-Renewal Demand Letters
Subscription demand letters focus on violations of ROSCA, California’s Automatic Renewal Law, and FTC negative-option principles. Because the law in this area is clear and violations are often easy to document with screenshots, these letters can be very effective even though the dollar amounts are typically smaller than coaching disputes.
Begin by identifying the subscription service, when you signed up, and the current status. State that you are seeking confirmation that the subscription has been canceled, that no further charges will be made, and that charges made after you attempted to cancel should be refunded.
The factual section should describe the enrollment flow using the screenshots and documentation you preserved. Explain where you first encountered the offer, whether it was advertised as a free trial or as a paid subscription from the start, and what disclosures were provided during signup. State specifically whether the automatic renewal terms were disclosed clearly and conspicuously before you entered payment information, whether you were required to affirmatively agree to automatic renewal or whether consent was assumed, and whether you received a confirmation email that included the cancellation policy and instructions for canceling.
If the signup flow violated ROSCA or CARL, identify the specific violations. For example: “The signup page did not disclose that the seven-day trial would automatically convert to a $49.99 monthly subscription. The automatic renewal terms were included only in a linked Terms of Service document that was not required to be read before submitting payment information. I was not asked to affirmatively consent to automatic renewal. The confirmation email I received did not include instructions for how to cancel. These facts constitute violations of ROSCA’s disclosure and consent requirements and California’s Automatic Renewal Law sections 17602 and 17603.”
Describe your cancellation attempts and the obstacles you encountered. If there was no online cancellation option despite online enrollment, state that specifically and reference the FTC’s click-to-cancel principle and California’s requirement that online signups allow online cancellation. If you were required to call a phone number, describe what happened when you called: long hold times, disconnections, representatives who were unavailable or refused to process the cancellation, or “retention specialists” who subjected you to aggressive questioning designed to talk you out of canceling.
If you eventually succeeded in canceling but the company charged you after the cancellation date, document those charges and explain that continuing to bill after a consumer has canceled is a violation of ROSCA’s requirement to provide simple and effective cancellation mechanisms.
The legal section should cite ROSCA by statute number, explain that federal law requires clear disclosures, express informed consent, and reasonable cancellation mechanisms, and state that the company violated each of these requirements. Cite the FTC’s Negative Option Enforcement Policy Statement and the click-to-cancel rule to show that regulators are actively policing these practices and that the company’s conduct is exactly the type of behavior the FTC is targeting.
For California consumers, cite the Automatic Renewal Law and explain the specific statutory requirements the company violated. Quote section numbers for each requirement and explain how the company’s practices deviated from the statutory mandate. Reference the 2024 amendments and the fact that California has been tightening enforcement in this area.
Mention the LA Fitness case if the subscription involved difficult cancellation procedures, particularly if you were required to call or visit in person to cancel an online subscription. Explain that the FTC has made clear that these tactics are illegal and that your experience mirrors the practices federal enforcers are currently challenging in court.
The demand should request confirmation of cancellation effective as of the date you first attempted to cancel, cessation of all further charges, and a refund of all charges made from that date forward. Calculate the total refund amount and attach bank or credit card statements showing the charges. Set a ten-day deadline for compliance and explain that if the company does not respond, you will file complaints with the FTC and your state attorney general, dispute the charges with your credit card company as unauthorized charges, and pursue the refund through small claims court.
In subscription disputes, credit card chargebacks can be an effective parallel strategy. If the company violated ROSCA or state automatic renewal laws, you have a strong basis to dispute the charges with your credit card issuer as unauthorized charges or charges for services you attempted to cancel. Some demand letters reference this option explicitly: “If you do not process the refund voluntarily, I will dispute all charges made after [cancellation date] with my credit card company as unauthorized charges made in violation of federal consumer protection law.” This creates additional pressure because chargebacks result in fees for the merchant and can lead to increased processing costs or even loss of merchant accounts if chargeback rates become too high.
Negotiation and Settlement Terms
Not every demand letter results in full capitulation by the company. Many will respond with a counteroffer, and you need to be prepared to evaluate whether a partial settlement makes sense or whether you should push forward with formal complaints and litigation.
For gym memberships, companies often offer to cancel the membership going forward but refuse to refund past charges, arguing that you had use of the gym during those months regardless of whether you tried to cancel. If the past charges are modest and the cancellation is confirmed in writing, that may be an acceptable outcome, particularly if the alternative is spending months fighting over a few hundred dollars. However, if the gym billed you for months during which the facility was not open, you moved away and notified them, or you attempted to cancel properly during the statutory cooling-off period, insist on a refund because the law specifically provides for refunds in those situations.
When negotiating, ask for confirmation in writing that the membership is canceled, that no further charges will be made, that the company will not report any alleged debt to credit bureaus or send the account to collections, and that both parties release all claims related to the membership. If you are accepting less than full refund of past charges, make sure the release is mutual so the gym cannot later claim you still owe money.
For high-ticket coaching programs, companies sometimes offer partial refunds or access to additional services to resolve complaints. Be skeptical of offers that involve more of the same services that did not deliver value the first time. The company may offer “advanced training” or “one-on-one sessions” that were promised originally but never provided, and if you accept that offer, you lose leverage and are back in the same program that failed before.
Focus on cash refunds rather than credits, course extensions, or promises of future value. Calculate what a reasonable settlement amount is based on the strength of your case, how much you paid, and how much of the program you accessed. If you went through half the course materials before realizing the program was not as advertised, a 50% refund might be reasonable. If you barely accessed anything and complained immediately, demand a much higher percentage.
Settlement agreements in coaching cases should include mutual releases, confidentiality provisions if the company insists on them, and non-disparagement clauses if you are comfortable with them. Understand that signing a non-disparagement agreement means you cannot post reviews or publicly complain about the company afterward. If you are not comfortable with that restriction, negotiate it out or demand a higher settlement amount in exchange for agreeing not to disparage the company.
Avoid settlement agreements that require you to participate in testimonials, case studies, or endorsements of the program. Some companies offer refunds on condition that you sign a statement saying the program was valuable and you are grateful for the refund due to personal circumstances, which the company then uses in marketing. Do not agree to provide a positive statement about a program that you believe was fraudulent.
For subscription disputes, companies often agree to cancel and refund a few months of charges but refuse to refund the entire disputed amount. Evaluate the offer based on how strong your documentation is. If you have clear evidence of ROSCA or CARL violations, screenshots showing lack of required disclosures, and documentation of burdensome cancellation procedures, insist on full refund of all charges made after you first attempted to cancel. If your documentation is weaker or the company can show it attempted to make cancellation available and you did not follow the process, a partial refund may be the practical outcome.
Make sure any settlement includes written confirmation that the subscription is permanently canceled, that your account has been closed, and that no further charges will be attempted. Confirm that the company will not sell or transfer your payment information to any third party. Get the settlement in writing before providing any release or before accepting any payment, and ensure the payment is made by check or wire transfer that cannot be reversed.
Escalation: Complaints, Chargebacks, and Litigation
When demand letters do not produce satisfactory settlements, consumers have several escalation options that can increase pressure and potentially result in recovery even without filing a lawsuit.
Regulatory complaints to federal and state agencies are free and can be filed online. The FTC’s complaint portal at ReportFraud.ftc.gov accepts complaints about subscription practices, deceptive coaching programs, and gym cancellation obstacles. The FTC uses complaints to identify patterns and decide which companies to investigate. Although filing a complaint does not guarantee individual resolution, companies that generate large volumes of complaints are more likely to face enforcement actions, and companies know this, so the threat of filing complaints is meaningful.
The California Attorney General’s consumer complaint portal accepts complaints about automatic renewal violations, unfair business practices, and fraud. California’s AG has actively pursued automatic renewal cases and other consumer protection matters, and a well-documented complaint can trigger investigation. Similarly, California’s Department of Consumer Affairs handles complaints related to businesses that overlap with regulated professions, and the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs provides mediation services and can assist consumers in pursuing complaints against local businesses.
When filing regulatory complaints, be specific about the legal violations. Do not just say “they won’t give me a refund.” Instead, explain “Company X violated California’s Automatic Renewal Law, Business and Professions Code section 17602, by failing to clearly disclose automatic renewal terms before I entered payment information, and violated section 17603 by failing to provide an acknowledgment containing cancellation instructions. The company also violated federal ROSCA requirements, 15 U.S.C. section 8403, by making cancellation unreasonably difficult.” Complaints that cite specific statutes and demonstrate the complainant understands the legal issues are taken more seriously.
Credit card chargebacks are particularly useful for subscription and coaching disputes. If you paid by credit card, you can dispute charges with your card issuer under the Fair Credit Billing Act for billing errors, unauthorized charges, or charges for goods or services not delivered as agreed. The process is initiated by calling your credit card company or filing a dispute through your online banking portal.
For subscription charges made after you attempted to cancel, the chargeback basis is that the charges were unauthorized because you revoked permission for recurring billing. Provide your card issuer with documentation of your cancellation attempts, copies of emails or screenshots showing you tried to cancel, and proof that the company continued billing anyway.
For coaching programs where the product was not as described, the chargeback basis is that the goods or services were not delivered as agreed. Explain that the sales materials promised specific deliverables such as one-on-one coaching, personalized support, or guaranteed results, and that what you received was only pre-recorded videos and generic content. Attach screenshots and emails documenting the discrepancy.
Card issuers will investigate, contact the merchant, and request a response. If the merchant cannot provide compelling evidence that the charges were legitimate and authorized, the issuer will credit your account. The merchant can try to fight the chargeback through the card network’s dispute resolution process, but merchants are often unwilling to invest the effort for disputed charges where the customer’s documentation is strong.
Be aware that companies sometimes respond to chargebacks by threatening to sue for breach of contract or claiming the chargeback itself was fraudulent. Those threats are usually empty if your chargeback was based on legitimate grounds. Filing a chargeback for charges you believe were improper is not fraud; it is using the dispute resolution process Congress and the card networks created for exactly this purpose.
Small claims court is the final escalation for amounts within the jurisdictional limit, which in California is $12,500 for individuals and sole proprietors and $6,250 for other business entities. Small claims is designed for self-represented litigants, and the filing fees are modest. The court’s website provides instructions on how to file, serve the defendant, and present evidence at the hearing.
For gym membership cases, bring your contract, documentation of cancellation attempts, bank statements showing charges after cancellation, and copies of the statutory provisions you claim were violated. Judges in small claims court are accustomed to hearing gym membership disputes and generally understand the relevant consumer protection laws.
For coaching cases, bring printed copies of sales page screenshots, webinar recordings or transcripts if available, the contract, email correspondence, and evidence of what the program actually delivered. Organize the evidence to tell a clear story: here is what was promised, here is what I paid, here is what I actually received, and here is why that gap constitutes fraud or breach of contract.
Small claims hearings are informal, and judges will often ask questions and guide the presentation. Be prepared to explain your case in plain language without relying on legal jargon, but reference the specific statutes where appropriate to show that your claims are based on established law.
FAQ
Can a company enforce a “no refunds” policy when they misrepresented what I was buying?
No. A no-refund clause in a contract does not protect a company from fraud or misrepresentation claims. If the company made false statements about income potential, program deliverables, or other material facts to induce you to pay, and what you received was fundamentally different from what was promised, you can seek rescission of the contract regardless of what the fine print says. California law and most other states recognize that it would be unconscionable to allow a seller to keep money obtained through fraud simply because the contract included a no-refund term. Courts routinely refuse to enforce no-refund clauses when the seller failed to deliver what was promised or engaged in deceptive practices.
My gym contract says I have to cancel in person, but the FTC sued LA Fitness for requiring in-person cancellation. Does that mean I can cancel by email?
The FTC’s lawsuit against LA Fitness challenges in-person-only cancellation as an unfair practice that violates federal consumer protection principles, but the lawsuit is not yet resolved and does not automatically invalidate all in-person cancellation requirements. However, it does provide strong support for your position if your gym is making cancellation unreasonably difficult. California’s Health Studio Services Contract Law allows cancellation by written notice, which can be mailed. The FTC’s click-to-cancel rule, when it takes full effect, will require that cancellation be available through the same medium as signup, meaning online enrollment should allow online cancellation. For now, if your gym contract requires in-person cancellation and you cannot reasonably visit in person, send written cancellation by certified mail and cite both California law and the FTC’s enforcement position against LA Fitness in your demand letter.
I paid for a coaching program with a credit card payment plan. If I dispute the charges, will the company sue me?
Companies sometimes threaten to sue customers who file chargebacks, but those threats are rarely carried out if your dispute is based on legitimate grounds. Filing a chargeback because you believe the program was misrepresented or failed to deliver what was promised is not fraud; it is using the consumer protection mechanisms that exist precisely for these situations. The company would have to sue in court and prove that it delivered what was promised and that your chargeback was baseless. If you have strong documentation showing the gap between sales claims and actual delivery, the company is unlikely to file suit because discovery would expose their deceptive practices. Continue with the chargeback, preserve your evidence, and consult with an attorney if the company actually files a lawsuit rather than just threatening one.
Can I be required to go through arbitration instead of suing, and does that mean I have no leverage?
Many coaching and subscription contracts include arbitration clauses requiring disputes to be resolved through private arbitration rather than court. Arbitration clauses are generally enforceable, but they do not eliminate your leverage. Arbitration costs money for the company, and if you file a demand for arbitration citing fraud, consumer protection violations, and requesting a full refund, the company must decide whether to invest in arbitration or settle. Additionally, some arbitration clauses are unenforceable if they are unconscionable, if they prohibit you from pursuing claims in small claims court, or if they were imposed as part of the fraudulent transaction you are challenging. Review the arbitration provision carefully, and if you are serious about pursuing claims, consult with a consumer protection attorney who can evaluate whether the clause is enforceable and whether proceeding with arbitration or challenging the clause makes more sense.
What is the five-day cooling-off period for gym contracts, and can I cancel for any reason?
California’s Health Studio Services Contract Law provides a five-day right to cancel health club contracts for any reason. The contract must include a specific cancellation notice in at least ten-point type, in a form substantially similar to the statutory language provided in Civil Code section 1812.85. If the contract includes the proper notice, you can cancel within five days of signing by mailing the cancellation notice to the address specified in the contract. If the contract does not include the required notice, the gym has not effectively limited your cancellation right, which means you may be able to argue that the five-day window should be extended or that the contract is unenforceable. The cooling-off period is in addition to other cancellation rights you have under the statute, such as the right to cancel if the facility does not open, fails to provide advertised services, or moves to a less convenient location.
If I accessed some of the course materials before realizing the coaching program was a scam, can I still demand a full refund?
Yes, in most cases. The fact that you logged into the course portal and watched some videos does not waive your right to rescind the contract if the entire transaction was induced by fraud or if the company failed to deliver what was promised. The question is whether what you received was materially different from what was represented during the sales process. If you were promised weekly one-on-one coaching calls and received only pre-recorded videos, the fact that you watched those videos does not mean you got what you paid for. If the sales presentation guaranteed specific income results and the program delivered nothing close to that, accessing generic materials does not constitute acceptance of the program. Companies often argue that accessing materials means you “used” the product and cannot get a refund, but courts recognize that consumers cannot immediately evaluate whether a coaching program will deliver on its promises and that some initial access is necessary to discover the misrepresentation.
How long do I have to file a complaint or lawsuit after discovering I was scammed?
Statutes of limitations vary by state and by the type of claim. In California, fraud claims generally must be filed within three years of discovering the fraud. Contract claims have a longer statute of limitations, typically four years. Consumer protection claims under California’s CLRA or UCL also generally have statutes of limitations in the three-to-four-year range. Federal claims under ROSCA or FTC Act enforcement are typically brought by the FTC rather than private individuals, though some federal consumer protection statutes do allow private rights of action with specific time limits. The practical reality is that the sooner you act, the stronger your position. Evidence becomes harder to preserve over time, companies go out of business or change names, and memories fade. If you believe you were defrauded or that a company violated consumer protection laws, send a demand letter as soon as you recognize the problem, ideally within weeks or months rather than years.
Should I post a negative review about the company before or after sending a demand letter?
Be strategic about public complaints. Posting a detailed negative review before sending a demand letter can alert the company that you intend to fight, which might cause them to take your demand more seriously. However, it can also cause the company to become defensive and less willing to negotiate, and if your review includes statements that turn out to be inaccurate, the company could claim defamation. A safer approach is to send the demand letter first, see if the company is willing to negotiate, and reserve the option of posting reviews or filing public complaints if the company refuses to resolve the matter. If you do post reviews, stick to factual statements about your experience rather than broad accusations. Saying “the sales presentation promised weekly one-on-one calls but I only received access to pre-recorded videos” is factual and defensible. Saying “this company is a complete scam and the owner is a criminal” is more likely to result in legal threats or defamation claims.