An AI coach shut down. The Garmin case reveals who controls training data

21 October 2026

British AI coaching service Intervals Pro closed on 12 October amid uncertainty over continued access to Garmin data through Intervals.icu. Now the Intervals.icu developer is reporting new access options from Garmin. The case shows how decisive platform agreements can be for companies building services around athletes’ training data.

British AI coaching service Intervals Pro closed on 12 October amid uncertainty over continued access to Garmin data through Intervals.icu. Now the Intervals.icu developer is reporting new access options from Garmin. The case shows how decisive platform agreements can be for companies building services around athletes’ training data. In its <a href="https://intervals.pro/">closure notice</a>, Intervals Pro says the coach depended on Garmin data through Intervals.icu. Billing has stopped, and unused prepaid time is to be refunded automatically. Intervals Pro and Intervals.icu are two different services. The former provided AI coaching; the latter aggregates and analyses training data and remains operational. According to <a href="https://the5krunner.com/2026/10/14/garmin-api-intervals-third-party-apps/">the5krunner’s reporting</a>, Intervals Pro said it had around 3,600 athletes. How many were paying customers is not confirmed in the available source material. The significance therefore extends beyond one app: a service can have users and working technology yet remain vulnerable if access to essential data becomes uncertain. <h2>An important clarification — and a new update today</h2> Initial reporting suggested new restrictions. But on 14 October, Intervals.icu developer David Tinker published a <a href="https://forum.intervals.icu/t/api-access-to-intervals-icu/609/829">clarification following a conversation with Garmin</a>: the requirements around third-party sharing through the Intervals.icu API were not new. He also wrote that the agreement revisions were part of a planned reopening of the Garmin Connect Developer Program, describing the prospect of easier access for individuals and apps as positive. In a <a href="https://forum.intervals.icu/t/api-access-to-intervals-icu/609/845">new update on 21 October</a>, Tinker says the programme is due to open that day. He describes free personal API keys through Garmin Connect, a Business Starter option allowing app developers to apply for access and start building for free, and Enterprise access for larger services. This is Tinker’s account of the announced reopening, not evidence that every application will be approved or that all onward sharing is permitted. Nor does it reverse the closure of Intervals Pro. But the update makes it misleading to describe the situation as a new blanket ban on third-party apps. <h2>An athlete’s consent is not an API agreement</h2> The data chain may run from a sports watch to the manufacturer’s cloud platform, through a third-party integration and finally into an analytics or coaching service. The developer at the end does not necessarily control the terms governing the preceding links. Four issues must be distinguished: the athlete’s rights over personal data, a company’s contractual API access, permission to redistribute data, and the right to use data in commercial products. The athlete’s consent does not automatically resolve every contractual issue between suppliers. Section 5.2(o) of the <a href="https://developerportal.garmin.com/sites/default/files/Garmin%20Connect%20Developer%20Program%20Agreement.pdf#page=5">Garmin Connect Developer Program Agreement</a> restricts, among other things, developing an API that provides end-user data to third-party services “that have not been approved by Garmin in writing”. This is therefore a provision covering, among other things, onward availability through interfaces, with written approval as a central condition. It can matter when an app receives data through an intermediary platform, even if that platform itself has a Garmin integration. The provision is not, in itself, evidence that all direct integrations are being stopped. Nor does it establish that the manufacturer owns every right to everything an athlete records. <h2>Garmin provides both infrastructure and training services</h2> The commercial context also matters. Garmin <a href="https://www.garmin.com/en-US/newsroom/press-release/corporate/garmin-acquires-trainingpeaks-and-trainheroic-leading-endurance-and-strength-training-platforms-for-athletes-and-coaches/">announced its acquisition of TrainingPeaks and TrainHeroic on 22 July 2026</a>. The company described the purpose as strengthening its offering for athletes and coaches. Garmin consequently operates at several levels: devices and sensors, data collection and cloud infrastructure, application interfaces, and training platforms. For independent developers, this can create a potential tension when the provider of essential infrastructure also offers adjacent software. At the same time, closer integration can improve services and simplify the user experience. There is no documented evidence that the acquisition was intended to exclude competitors or that it explains Intervals Pro’s closure. The strategic significance lies in the dependencies between participants, not in an established intention. <h2>The Data Act changes the framework, but does not solve everything</h2> The <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/data-act-explained">European Commission’s explanation of the Data Act</a> describes rights to access and share data from connected products, including fitness equipment. Most provisions have applied in the EU since 12 September 2025. The scope covers available raw and preprocessed data, but not necessarily derived analyses or highly enriched insights. Privacy, trade secrets and specific data-sharing conditions still need to be addressed. The law therefore does not automatically provide unrestricted access to every training metric through every commercial API. <a href="https://nkom.no/internett/internettbaserte-plattformer/data-act-da">Norway’s communications authority, Nkom</a>, highlights data portability and interoperability. In the <a href="https://www.regjeringen.no/no/sub/eos-notatbasen/notatene/2022/sep/dataforordningen/id2928372">Norwegian government’s public EEA note</a>, checked at publication, the regulation remains under assessment in the EEA-EFTA states. Norwegian implementation requires legislative changes; the EU application date is not, by itself, a Norwegian commencement date. This does not mean Norwegian athletes lack rights. Norway’s Personal Data Act and the GDPR already apply, including rights of access and, subject to conditions, data portability. Those rights are nevertheless not identical to a company’s commercial API agreement. For Norwegian sportstech, the lesson is commercial: companies in AI coaching, performance analytics, athlete monitoring and digital health must assess platform risk alongside their product and market. Uncertain agreements can affect scalability and investors’ assessments of a business. Norwegian Sport Tech’s assessment is that data sources, reuse rights and the ability to switch suppliers should be clarified early. Supporting multiple manufacturers may reduce dependency, but does not remove contractual or privacy obligations. The case does not establish that particular Norwegian companies or sports organisations have been affected. Athletes generate training data, manufacturers operate the infrastructure and developers build new services. Intervals Pro shows how vulnerable that division of responsibilities can be. Garmin’s announced reopening makes the next question concrete: which terms will actually determine which innovations reach athletes? Illustration: A smartwatch above a fjord at sunset. The image does not show Intervals Pro or a specific Garmin model.