Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2025

SOELU's 'all-inclusive 1,980 yen' fitness club wasn't all-inclusive

SOELU promised 'yoga, machine pilates, moxa steam — everything unlimited from ¥1,980 a month', then excluded part of what the ad implied was included.

SOELU Inc. · 2025-12-16

What happened

From 14 March 2024 to 31 July 2025, SOELU's website advertised its fitness club membership with the claim 'ヨガ・マシンピラティス・よもぎ蒸しなど 全部受け放題' (yoga, machine pilates, moxa steam and more — all unlimited) and '月々1,980円〜で ここまでできる!' (all this from 1,980 yen a month). The presentation implied every listed service was covered by the flat monthly fee.

In reality the membership did not include all of the services the ad implied it covered; some of the promoted offerings were excluded from the 'all-inclusive' price. A customer who signed up on the strength of the 'everything unlimited' claim could find part of the pitch unavailable under the deal.

On 16 December 2025 the Consumer Affairs Agency certified a commitment plan covering the case, treating the display as a misleading representation of transaction terms under Article 5(2) (有利誤認).

Why it happened

  • An 'all-inclusive' claim is a promise about the whole menu — excluding anything the ad names breaks the deal a customer signed up for
  • A low monthly anchor price ('1,980円〜') beside 'everything unlimited' made the untrue breadth the entire selling point
  • Running the same claim for over a year spread the misrepresentation across every new member
What it costCAA commitment; refunds to membersembarrassing

The lesson

An 'all-inclusive' claim must cover everything the ad names. When excluded services vanish from the 'unlimited everything' price, the anchor price becomes bait, retold to every new member.

Aftermath

The certified commitment plan required SOELU to refund members who joined during the affected period on the understanding that all services were included, and to stop the misleading 'everything unlimited' framing. The case illustrates how Japan's 有利誤認 enforcement reaches subscription services whose headline promise outruns the terms.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →