Minnesota federal court OKs treadmill settlement

Six years of litigation between iFit Health and Fitness, NordicTrack and consumers have come to a close in the U.S. District Court for Minnesota. The court recently gave final approval to a settlement that resolves disputes about the power of treadmills sold by iFIT.

Plaintiffs purchased NordicTrack treadmills manufactured by iFIT, a health and fitness company based in Logan, Utah. (iFIT acquired Chaska-based NordicTrack in 1998.) The plaintiffs alleged that iFIT’s nationwide advertising and product labeling misrepresented the performance capabilities of its treadmill motors, specifically by overstating their continuous horsepower (CHP) ratings.

According to iFIT’s marketing materials, the treadmills were designed to deliver between 2.6 CHP and 4.25 CHP, depending on the model. The plaintiffs asserted that these CHP ratings conveyed to reasonable consumers that the treadmills could continuously sustain those power levels during normal residential operation, where most homes are equipped with a 120-volt, 15-amp household electrical circuit. They indicated that this specification was a key performance indicator influencing purchasing decisions.

But plaintiffs claimed that the CHP representations were inaccurate. Because standard household outlets are limited in the voltage and amperage they can deliver, they found that the treadmills could not physically generate or maintain the advertised horsepower during regular use. Had they known this, plaintiffs asserted, they would either have not purchased the treadmills or otherwise paid a lot less money.

The action was originally filed in 2019 and was brought by three Minnesota residents. There have been several years of arbitration, litigation and mediation. The fourth amended complaint asserted a breach-of-express-warranty claim on behalf of a nationwide class. Defendants opposed class certification.

Things came together in July 2024, when the parties reached a class settlement agreement. The settlement class encompassed roughly 1.55 million purchasers nationwide who bought NordicTrack or ProForm treadmills between November 2015 and January 2020.

The court found that Rule 23 requirements for class certification were satisfied. It included 1.55 million members, making joinder impracticable, members shared key questions about alleged horsepower misrepresentations and overpayment, representatives had similar injuries, counsel acted competently and aligned with the class, and common issues about defendants’ conduct predominated.

The court then also had to determine whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Class members can select one of several forms of relief. This includes a treadmill maintenance kit worth about $30, a treadmill mat worth about $69, or a credit for two to five months of iFIT’s membership subscriptions offering online live and prerecorded fitness lessons, depending on their existing tier. Defendants also agreed to add clear disclaimers to their packaging, manuals, and marketing regarding horsepower claims, and to ask retailers to display similar disclaimers.

There were three objectors that disputed the awards’ value to themselves and other class members. One objector claimed that the benefits had “potentially no value” for those who were no longer using the treadmill. The three objectors requested monetary damages instead.

“It is no stretch to believe that many own a treadmill today, whether the NordicTrack model at the subject of this suit or another,” Judge Eric Tostrud reasoned. “Nothing in the record suggests the mat and maintenance kit are useful only to NordicTrack treadmills, as opposed to other brands’ equipment, and it would be odd if that were the case.”

“Class members without treadmills benefit from the subscription memberships,” Tostrud added.

Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs’ prospects for prevailing at trial were uncertain. Even if plaintiffs succeeded, the potential recovery, based on modest price-premium damages of only 2% to 8% of treadmill cost, would yield limited compensation. For an $800 treadmill, 2% would be $16. Combined with the costs, risks, and delays of trial and appeal, the court concluded that settlement provided a far more realistic and beneficial resolution.

The court has also granted $2.4 million in attorney fees, expenses, and service awards. Objectors disputed the reasonableness of the requested fee award, with some objectors characterizing it as “egregious and inequitable” given that the class did not receive a monetary award. Some objectors accused the attorneys and defendants of collusion, and another objectors claimed that class benefits were not pursued vigorously.

The court found the arguments unpersuasive. “Counsel pursued this case at a significant opportunity cost and remained diligent throughout the lengthy proceedings,” Tostrud concluded.