The astonishing success of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Natural Language Processing (NLP) has spurred their use in many application domains beyond text analysis, including wearable sensor-based Human Activity Recognition (HAR). In such scenarios, often sensor data are directly fed into an LLM along with text instructions for the model to perform activity classification. Seemingly remarkable results have been reported for such LLM-based HAR systems when they are evaluated on standard benchmarks from the field. Yet, we argue, care has to be taken when evaluating LLM-based HAR systems in such a traditional way. Most contemporary LLMs are trained on virtually the entire (accessible) internet -- potentially including standard HAR datasets. With that, it is not unlikely that LLMs actually had access to the test data used in such benchmark experiments.The resulting contamination of training data would render these experimental evaluations meaningless. In this paper we investigate whether LLMs indeed have had access to standard HAR datasets during training. We apply memorization tests to LLMs, which involves instructing the models to extend given snippets of data. When comparing the LLM-generated output to the original data we found a non-negligible amount of matches which suggests that the LLM under investigation seems to indeed have seen wearable sensor data from the benchmark datasets during training. For the Daphnet dataset in particular, GPT-4 is able to reproduce blocks of sensor readings. We report on our investigations and discuss potential implications on HAR research, especially with regards to reporting results on experimental evaluation