Case Overview

Type: New Lawsuits Roundup

Verticals: Fees & Charges, Consumer Protection

Cases Covered: 3

Last Updated: April 2026

Hidden Fees, Junk Charges, and Deceptive Billing: April 2026 Roundup

Consumer protection litigation is heating up this spring. From gym membership fees buried in fine print to handling charges tacked on at the end of an online checkout, companies across multiple industries are facing new legal scrutiny over allegedly deceptive billing practices. Meanwhile, federal regulators are moving against operators accused of charging upfront fees for debt relief services that, according to the FTC, never materialized.

1. Crunch Fitness — Mandatory Junk Fees

Status: Newly Filed

Who May Be Affected: Current and former Crunch Fitness members

Alleged Fee Type: Mandatory membership junk fees

A new class action lawsuit alleges that Crunch Fitness charges members mandatory fees that are not adequately disclosed before enrollment. According to the complaint, the gym chain bundles charges into its membership pricing in a way that the plaintiffs argue is deceptive and unfair under consumer protection law.

The lawsuit claims that members were not given a clear, upfront picture of the total cost of their memberships, and that the fees were effectively unavoidable — presented as mandatory rather than optional. The filing alleges this practice violates state consumer protection statutes.

Crunch Fitness has not yet publicly responded to the allegations.

How to stay informed: Monitor the case docket for updates on class certification and any potential settlement.

2. Abercrombie & Fitch — Hidden Handling Fees at Checkout

Status: Newly Filed

Who May Be Affected: Online shoppers who purchased from Abercrombie & Fitch websites

Alleged Fee Type: Undisclosed mandatory handling fees (drip pricing)

Abercrombie & Fitch is facing a new class action lawsuit that alleges the retailer employs drip pricing on its e-commerce websites — a practice in which the advertised price is lower than what consumers ultimately pay. According to the complaint, mandatory handling fees are not disclosed until the final stages of the checkout process, leaving shoppers unaware of the true cost of their purchases until they are already deep into completing a transaction.

The lawsuit claims that this approach violates consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the actual price of goods. The plaintiff alleges that had the handling fees been disclosed earlier in the shopping experience, they would not have completed the purchase or would have expected to pay less.

Drip pricing has drawn increasing scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission, which has identified the practice as a potential violation of FTC Act Section 5 governing unfair or deceptive acts. The FTC has made hidden fees an enforcement priority in recent years, and private class action litigation has followed suit.

Abercrombie & Fitch has not publicly commented on the lawsuit.

How to stay informed: Follow case developments to learn whether a settlement class is certified and whether online purchasers may be eligible to participate.

3. FTC vs. NERD Solutions / ED REF Inc. — Student Loan Debt Relief Scam

Status: Temporary Restraining Order Obtained

Who May Be Affected: Consumers who paid upfront fees for student loan debt relief services

Alleged Fee Type: Illegal upfront fees for fraudulent debt relief services

The Federal Trade Commission has obtained a temporary restraining order against an alleged student loan debt relief operation and its operators. According to the FTC's complaint filed against NERD Solutions Inc., ED REF Inc., and operators Natalie Rodriguez and Pablo Ortiz, the defendants allegedly cold-called consumers — including thousands on the National Do Not Call Registry — and falsely claimed to be affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education or consumers' actual loan servicers.

The FTC alleges that the operation, which has been running since at least February 2022, promised student loan debt relief that did not exist and collected illegal upfront fees from consumers in exchange. Charging upfront fees for debt relief services is prohibited under the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule.

The temporary restraining order halts the operation while litigation proceeds. Consumers who paid fees to this operation may want to review the FTC's complaint for details on how the agency is proceeding and what remedies are being sought.

How to stay informed: Monitor FTC enforcement updates for information on potential consumer redress.

Key Takeaways

• Hidden fees are under the microscope. Both the Crunch Fitness and Abercrombie & Fitch lawsuits center on the same core allegation: that mandatory fees were not disclosed clearly or early enough for consumers to make informed decisions. This mirrors the FTC's broader junk fee enforcement priority.
• Drip pricing is increasingly litigated. Adding fees only at checkout — after consumers have already invested time in selecting items — is now a recognized legal theory in consumer class actions. Courts across the country are actively weighing these claims.
• Federal and private enforcement often move in parallel. The FTC's action against the student loan debt relief scheme is a reminder that regulatory enforcement and class action litigation frequently target the same deceptive practices, often at the same time.
• Documentation matters. Consumers who believe they were charged undisclosed fees may wish to retain screenshots of advertised prices, checkout flows, and final receipts, as this type of evidence can be relevant in class action proceedings.
• No proof of purchase may be required. Depending on how settlement classes are defined in the Crunch and Abercrombie cases, class members may be able to file claims without receipts — though eligibility details will depend on the terms of any future settlements.

Have you encountered unexpected fees at checkout or on your gym membership bill? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on class action lawsuits and consumer protection developments. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any settlement class can only be determined by an attorney or the court overseeing a given case.