The fact is you don’t really know how gyms would be affected en masse by such a law. The only thing we really know for sure, is that people would have an easier time not using services that they don’t want to use. I don’t really understand who could argue against such a change. Arguing against it is like arguing for some weird mini welfare for gyms on the backs of random members of the population. If we want that, then maybe we should just pass laws giving gyms money from the general municipal/state budget. It would accomplish the same thing and be much more fair and honest.
I haven't examined their books myself.
Like I wrote, I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out the consequences.
The business model may still be the same in Sweden. It's just that people are too lazy to cancel, not that they cannot cancel. I never had trouble canceling any of the several gyms I attended over the years.
If what they said was actually true, they _should_ go out of business. If their business depends on them exploiting the legal system to thwart their users’ clear will, they are immoral actors and deserve the economic difficulties that would be bestowed upon them.
Edit: to you edit
> The business model may still be the same in Sweden. It's just that people are too lazy to cancel, not that they cannot cancel. I never had trouble canceling any of the several gyms I attended over the years.
So basically what you’re tacitly admitting is that a law allowing cancelation might actually be _fine_. It might even turn out fine for your friends. I guess if that’s your position, then I don’t really have any more argument with you.
Basically where a lot of education funding comes from. (Lotteries)
