Unjust enrichment is a legal principle that says: if someone has your money and no right to keep it, they have to give it back.
A claim requires three things:
If all three are true, the law requires restitution — the return of what was taken.1
The path to unjust enrichment often runs through other unlawful conduct:
These are distinct legal violations in their own right. But unjust enrichment is the financial reward that makes all of them worthwhile — it is the money the company gets to keep when consumers give up.
Why This Applies to Gyms and Subscription Companies
Across the fitness industry, companies collect money through recurring billing systems that are easy to enter and difficult to exit. Cancellations go unprocessed. Charges continue after a customer asks them to stop. Refunds are partial, delayed, or never issued. The company ends up holding money it has no legitimate basis to keep.
That is unjust enrichment — regardless of how it happened.
The conduct behind it — false promises by sales staff, billing systems designed to frustrate cancellation, refund processes built to exhaust consumers into giving up — may violate multiple federal and state consumer protection laws. Those violations are serious and worth pursuing on their own.
But unjust enrichment describes something more fundamental. It does not ask why the company has your money. It asks one question: is it just for them to keep it?
When a company admits its own employee set up billing incorrectly, issues a partial refund, and then goes silent — the answer is no.
Sources & Legal Authority
Primary sources cited in this article
Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 1 (2011)
American Law Institute: "A person who is unjustly enriched at the expense of another is subject to liability in restitution." The leading doctrinal authority on unjust enrichment, recognized by courts in all 50 states.
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 8403
Federal law requiring clear disclosure, express consent before charging, and simple cancellation mechanisms for recurring billing.
FTC Policy on Negative Option Marketing (2021)
FTC guidance identifying "dark patterns" — deceptive designs that trick consumers into subscriptions — as existing law violations.
Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.608
Prohibits unfair or deceptive trade conduct. Consumers may recover actual or $200 statutory damages, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
This content is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Standards vary by jurisdiction.