The General Directorate of Consumer Affairs (DGC) initiated two procedures for administrative infringement against “two large gym chains” for the use of “absolutely prohibited clauses” in their respective affiliation contracts, it was announced this Thursday.
In a statement, the DGC affirms that, in a recent inspection action, it analyzed 20 types of affiliation contracts and a total of 241 contractual clauses of two “large gym chains”, having detected the “use of clauses absolutely prohibited by both operators.” ”. .
“As a result of this inspection action, two processes for administrative infraction were initiated against the operators in question, whose Gyms are located both in large urban centers, such as Lisbon and Porto, and in medium-sized cities.“he adds, without specifying the operators in question.
According to the DGC, the use of absolutely prohibited clauses in contracts constitutes a very serious infringement, with fines that can range between 16,000 and 60,000 euros in the case of medium-sized companies and between 24,000 and 90,000 euros in the case of the big ones.
As he explains, These clauses are considered absolutely prohibited because “they only protect the economic operator, in this case the gym, taking away the rights of the consumer.” or placing him at a clear disadvantage.”
Among the absolutely prohibited clauses detected in this action, The DGC indicates the exclusion or limitation of liability for damages caused to the life, moral or physical integrity or health of people.highlighting that it is “illegal to put a clause in the contract that states that the gym is not responsible if someone is injured or suffers any moral or health damage.”
Another prohibited clause detected was the exclusion of the exception of breach of contract or termination for breachsince “the client cannot be prevented from canceling his subscription if the gym does not comply with its contractual obligations.”
“The clause that limits the use of part or all of the gym facilities, for the purposes of, for example, carrying out works, without clients being able to suspend the payment of their monthly fees/fees in cases where “These gyms do not provide access to the facilities and all gym equipment for the practice of physical and sports activities, thus excluding the possibility of those who make use of the legal exception of breach of contract,” it states.
Clauses were also detected that exclude the duties that fall on the gym as a result of defects in the provision. or that establish, in this context, predetermined reparations or pecuniary compensation.
According to the DGC, “this clause is prohibited because the operator cannot resolve its responsibilities if there are problems with the services it provides, nor can it limit the amounts it would have to pay the client as compensation for these problems.”
In this context, he points out, “the clause that attributes to users all responsibility for the use of equipment for physical activities is considered abusive,” and “it is legally unacceptable that a sports facility open to the public is completely exempt from liability.” ”. for any damage resulting from the practice of physical and sporting activities provided in its facilities.”
In the same line, gyms cannot “establish, from the beginning, the compensation that will be owedin the event, for example, that the consumer is injured by exercising on a machine that does not function properly.”
From the beginning of the year until October 18, the DGC indicates that the Electronic Complaints Book has already received 1,190 complaints related to gyms, highlighting the quality of services as the main factor of dissatisfaction (with 240 complaints), followed by transactions and orders (129), customer service (118), consumer information (93), loyalty cards and programs (92) and prices and advertising campaigns (82).
Among the secondary reasons for complaint, the DGC highlights service problems (158 complaints), incorrect information provided (79), registrations and cancellations (75), lack of professionalism (69), retention of improper value (63) and billing (55 ). .
Source: Observadora
