NEW YORK, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Peloton Interactive ( PTON )

won dismissal of a lawsuit claiming it defrauded shareholders by

concealing how demand for its home exercise equipment, which

surged after the COVID-19 pandemic began, was declining as

vaccines became available and gyms began reopening.

In a Monday night decision, U.S. District Judge Andrew

Carter in Manhattan said several optimistic Peloton statements

about the company's future were accompanied by "very detailed

warnings," including that lockdowns could end and people could

resume their pre-pandemic routines.

Carter did not address whether the New York-based maker of

stationary bicycles and treadmills intended to defraud

shareholders, calling its alleged false statements "entirely

consistent" with its actual financial results.

The proposed class action was led by Robeco Capital Growth

Funds SICAV - Robeco Global Consumer Trends, a Rotterdam,

Netherlands investment company.

Lawyers for the shareholders did not immediately respond to

requests for comment on Tuesday. Peloton and its lawyers did not

immediately respond to similar requests.

Shareholders between Feb. 5, 2021 and Jan. 19, 2022 had

sought to recoup losses as Peloton's stock price fell more than

80%.

The challenged statements included former Chief Executive

John Foley's Nov. 4, 2021 assessment that Peloton was

"well-equipped" for the holiday season, even as it cut its

full-year revenue forecast and said 91% of inventory was unsold.

Though Peloton's stock price fell 35% the next day,

Carter said Peloton ultimately met its quarterly sales forecast,

and anecdotal evidence that some staff missed their sales quotas

"do not support an inference of falsity."

Peloton reported its first sales increase in nine quarters

in August, three months after announcing a planned 15% workforce

reduction. Its stock price has fallen more than 97% since

peaking in Jan. 2021.

The case is Robeco Capital Growth Funds SICAV - Robeco

Global Consumer Trends v Peloton Interactive Inc ( PTON ) et al, U.S.

District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 21-09582.