Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Scent Lok Showdown

May 18, 2010
Scent Lok Showdown - 11

The long-awaited ruling regarding allegations of false advertising by ALS, the manufacturer of Scent Lok clothing, has been issued in U.S. Federal Court. The law firm of Heins, Mills & Olson issued this release on their website:

 

 

On May 13, 2010, United States Federal District Judge Kyle found that ALS, the manufacturer and seller of Scent Lok clothing, and Cabela's and Gander Mountain, both of which sell Scent Lok and their own private-label clothing using Scent Lok technology, falsely advertised the ability of their Scent Lok clothing to eliminate odor. The Court found that “Defendants have published countless advertisements” almost all of which “utilize the slogans ‘odor-eliminating technology’ or ‘odor-eliminating clothing.’” The Court further found that the experts agreed that the Scent Lok clothing “cannot eliminate odor, even when new.” The Court held that all advertisements that used the words “odor-eliminating technology,” “odor-eliminating clothing,” “eliminates all types of odor,” “odor elimination,” “remove all odor,” “complete scent elimination,” “scent-free,” “works on 100% of your scent 100% of the time,” “all human scent,” “odor is eradicated,” and graphics demonstrating that human odor cannot escape the carbon-embedded fabric are all false statements as a matter of law. In addition, the Court found claims that the Scent Lok clothing could be “reactivated” to “like new” or “pristine” condition to be false as a matter of law.

The Court will issue an injunction to prevent Defendants from further false advertising.

The Minnesota case is now ready for trial. The remaining issues in the Minnesota case are the amount of damages to be paid to each plaintiff and the award of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys.

Because the Court earlier denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Plaintiffs in the Minnesota case are only able to recover damages for their own purchases. However, the injunction against false advertising will benefit all future consumers of Scent Lok products in Minnesota.

 

 

Comments (11)

Top Rated
All Comments
from thatguy wrote 2 years 40 weeks ago

this is so funny to me after reading this whole overview of the hearing! theres is a guy that still says it works!!!!!people like that makes there industry what it is. stop looking at pictures and READ!!!!!my intake on scent control.have a buddy stand up wind of you and have him fart. now tell the same buddy to stand down wind and have him fart. if any case the wind turns on you!!hmm. you just smelled your buddys fart. guys its "camo and carbon." if carbon is what you want, go to your local army surplus store and buy a carbon suit made for tear gas. theres more carbon in it than scent blocker uses in a year.....last!!!! camo, take that same buddy that just farted on you and have him wear your best camo and stand 100 yards away from you on a woods line and take a picture. now go to the same army surplus store and buy some $20 good ole american made shirts and pants. and again take a picture. then you will see what really works. this is what just happened. you spent $200 on a camouflaged shirt and pants with a small trace of carbon on it. you just had your buddy fart on you wearing you new outfit.. theeeennnnn!!!you realized the camo doesnt work either. come on fellas, use the wind to your favor. if the winds not right, just move. if you need scent cover just use some cedar leaves and pack your pockets full. the scent companys just confrimed there stuff doesnt work ,so save your money and just enjoy the day in the woods. thanks for reading this post and enjoy your right to hunt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from treysmith01 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

good post. i like it.

http://www.treysmithblog.com

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetail swamp wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Follow up on ScentBlocker -

It looks like they are the winner by the Federal Courts. Works as claimed and even better.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

In re:

Activated Carbon-Based Hunting
Clothing Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Multidistrict Litigation
No. 09-md-2059 (RHK/JJK)

STIPULATED ORDER FOR SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs commenced this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons against Robinson Outdoors, Inc. and Robinson Outdoor Products, LLC
(“Robinson”) for alleged damages suffered from the marketing of carbon-lined hunting
clothing. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunctive relief, damages and attorneys’ fees for
alleged violations of various state consumer protection statutes and other laws. The
Plaintiffs for themselves and the Defendants for themselves hereby stipulate to this Final
Order for Settlement.
The findings stipulated herein are for settlement purposes only. They are not
admissible for purposes of determining the liability of other Defendants.
2

FINDINGS

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and has
jurisdiction over relief against Robinson. Venue in this district is proper.
2. Plaintiffs and Robinson stipulate and agree to this Order to settle and
resolve all matters in dispute arising from the Complaint to the date of entry of the Order.
Robinson does not admit any of the allegations of the Complaint, other than the
jurisdictional facts. Plaintiffs and Robinson stipulate and agree that this Order constitutes
a settlement pursuant to Rule 408.
3. Robinson waives all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge
or contest the validity of this Order.
4. Robinson has used the phrase “odor elimination” in connection with
hunting clothing apparel and other products.
5. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that none of Robinson’s
advertising of its “odor eliminating technology” products for at least the past three years
has used the term “100%,” “all,” “completely” or “totally” in referring to efficacy.
6. Robinson also maintains and the parties stipulate that its advertising of its
“odor eliminating technology” products for at least the past three years has used words
that further qualify this language indicating that carbon-embedded clothing cannot totally
eliminate odor. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that Robinson’s advertising
in the past three years, taken in context, implies only odor reduction.
7. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that Robinson’s advertising
over the last three years advocated a multiple phase process using all Robinson’s
3

products in combination so that the hunter has the best possible opportunity to eliminate
odor.
8. Robinson’s current advertising graphics depict how its “odor eliminating
technology” products work (i.e., that odor goes into the carbon), and Robinson maintains
and the parties stipulate that the graphic is not a depiction of the specific percentage of
odor adsorption.
9. The parties stipulate that carbon can adsorb human odor. The parties
stipulate that the amount of carbon in the product and the process used to embed the
carbon to the product impacts the carbon’s effectiveness. The parties further stipulate
that Robinson’s carbon-embedded clothing contains substantially more carbon and uses a
different application process than other carbon-embedded hunting clothing products
currently on the market. Robinson has produced evidence of expert testing that
establishes that its garments containing activated carbon are effective at blocking the
transmission of odor through the garments and the amount of carbon used and the process
by which the carbon is embedded in the liner of the hunting clothing makes the odor-
blocking ability of the Robinson products more effective at reducing human odor than
other hunting garments containing carbon as well as non-carbon hunting garments.
10. Robinson has provided evidence of expert testing that establishes that,
after washing and drying, its carbon fabrics continue to be effective at reducing odor
permeation.
4

11. Robinson has provided expert testing that shows that after washing and
drying its carbon fabrics are “reactivated” and such clothing is restored to some extent for
continued beneficial use.
12. Robinson denies all the allegations and claims made by the Plaintiffs in
this and the related actions.
13. The parties have agreed to settle all claims that have been brought or
could have been brought against the other parties and forever release and discharge each
other from all possible claims except for performance of the settlement obligations.
14. The Court adopts these facts for purposes of this Order.
ORDER

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING RELIEF

II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use its phrase “odor eliminating
technology” but only in conjunction with other words or phrases that expressly make
clear that the clothing in question can only reduce the release of human odor. Robinson
may not use the phrases “elimination” or “odor eliminating” or “scent eliminating” alone
or in conjunction with words or graphics that say or depict “scent-free,” “odor free,”
“100%,” “all” or “every trace” or “every bit” of odor as removed by the clothing.
Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use the word “regenerate” or
“reactivate” as a description of the process of removal of some trapped odor from the
clothing, as long as they do not include additional words or graphics that say or depict
5

regeneration or reactivation as a process that will restore the clothing to pristine or like
new condition.
RELEASE

III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

Any and all claims (except for performance of the settlement obligations) that the
Plaintiffs have against the Defendants and any of their officers, directors, shareholders,
members, employees, agents, affiliates and attorneys, of whatever nature, whether known
or unknown, from the beginning of time, are hereby dismissed, discharged and satisfied
in full.
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this
matter for purposes of construction, modification and enforcement.

ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

IV. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to Federal Rule 54(b), that there is no
just reason for delay and the Clerk of Court shall immediately enter this Order as a final
judgment as to relief against Robinson.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Posted on Justia .com was the settlement agreement by Scentblocker and Scott Schultz in the remaining 9 state lawsuits. This will start to get interesting for the remaining defendants.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Posted on Justia .com was the settlement agreement by Scentblocker and Scott Schultz in the remaining 9 state lawsuits. This will start to get interesting for the remaining defendants.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from terry08 wrote 4 years 6 weeks ago

Seems in the past few years when the economy was riding high, there was a lot more money than good sense going into the hunting industry. I never use any commercial scent products, and I limit out on Bucks every year. I rub my clothing down with cedar needles as I enter the woods. It is natural to my area and I feel that is all anyone needs to cover their scent. Whatever is native to your hunting area. Save your hard earned money for a new rifle or something and don't buy into all the bogus products out there on the market. Good hunting skills will get you much better results than the crap being sold today.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bo wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

bigbuckjoe, ROFLMAO!!! :-D

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bigbuckjoe wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Not only myself, but other friends have had deer downwind while wearing Scent Lok or Scent Blocker and have not been winded. I have been in the stand and not had it on and been winded by a circling doe, so from my experience, the sh*t works. Of course you have to shower and take all the precautionary steps before you hunt and if this gives me one more layer of defense against the whitetail nose, then I'm in. And as far as this lawsuit, I'm suing Miller Lite over taste great, less filling, cause it does taste great, but I get really full after 12 or so....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from patrick88 wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

its just another industry ripping off its customers you cant eliminate odor you can only cover it for a short time.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from cgull wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Their items will be flying off the shelves now!!! I dont think many will get any refunds. Only those that have been involved with this from the start and those who have good lawyers. I use Scent Blocker, I never believed any of these carbon suits could remove all human scent. I do think some carbon suits can absorb some human odors which can help some. No matter what you wear or how clean you smell, deer will wind you if they're downwind of your stand. Maybe I should develope a rebreather so to mask human breath.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from charlie elk wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Amazing so many hunters were hoodwinked by these claims of scent elimination. Wonder how many more lawsuits in other states will be filed. Will the manufacturers and sellers going to voluntarily offer money back or store credits to their customers?
later,
charlie

+3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from charlie elk wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Amazing so many hunters were hoodwinked by these claims of scent elimination. Wonder how many more lawsuits in other states will be filed. Will the manufacturers and sellers going to voluntarily offer money back or store credits to their customers?
later,
charlie

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from terry08 wrote 4 years 6 weeks ago

Seems in the past few years when the economy was riding high, there was a lot more money than good sense going into the hunting industry. I never use any commercial scent products, and I limit out on Bucks every year. I rub my clothing down with cedar needles as I enter the woods. It is natural to my area and I feel that is all anyone needs to cover their scent. Whatever is native to your hunting area. Save your hard earned money for a new rifle or something and don't buy into all the bogus products out there on the market. Good hunting skills will get you much better results than the crap being sold today.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from bigbuckjoe wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Not only myself, but other friends have had deer downwind while wearing Scent Lok or Scent Blocker and have not been winded. I have been in the stand and not had it on and been winded by a circling doe, so from my experience, the sh*t works. Of course you have to shower and take all the precautionary steps before you hunt and if this gives me one more layer of defense against the whitetail nose, then I'm in. And as far as this lawsuit, I'm suing Miller Lite over taste great, less filling, cause it does taste great, but I get really full after 12 or so....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bo wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

bigbuckjoe, ROFLMAO!!! :-D

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from thatguy wrote 2 years 40 weeks ago

this is so funny to me after reading this whole overview of the hearing! theres is a guy that still says it works!!!!!people like that makes there industry what it is. stop looking at pictures and READ!!!!!my intake on scent control.have a buddy stand up wind of you and have him fart. now tell the same buddy to stand down wind and have him fart. if any case the wind turns on you!!hmm. you just smelled your buddys fart. guys its "camo and carbon." if carbon is what you want, go to your local army surplus store and buy a carbon suit made for tear gas. theres more carbon in it than scent blocker uses in a year.....last!!!! camo, take that same buddy that just farted on you and have him wear your best camo and stand 100 yards away from you on a woods line and take a picture. now go to the same army surplus store and buy some $20 good ole american made shirts and pants. and again take a picture. then you will see what really works. this is what just happened. you spent $200 on a camouflaged shirt and pants with a small trace of carbon on it. you just had your buddy fart on you wearing you new outfit.. theeeennnnn!!!you realized the camo doesnt work either. come on fellas, use the wind to your favor. if the winds not right, just move. if you need scent cover just use some cedar leaves and pack your pockets full. the scent companys just confrimed there stuff doesnt work ,so save your money and just enjoy the day in the woods. thanks for reading this post and enjoy your right to hunt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from cgull wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

Their items will be flying off the shelves now!!! I dont think many will get any refunds. Only those that have been involved with this from the start and those who have good lawyers. I use Scent Blocker, I never believed any of these carbon suits could remove all human scent. I do think some carbon suits can absorb some human odors which can help some. No matter what you wear or how clean you smell, deer will wind you if they're downwind of your stand. Maybe I should develope a rebreather so to mask human breath.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from patrick88 wrote 4 years 7 weeks ago

its just another industry ripping off its customers you cant eliminate odor you can only cover it for a short time.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Posted on Justia .com was the settlement agreement by Scentblocker and Scott Schultz in the remaining 9 state lawsuits. This will start to get interesting for the remaining defendants.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 4 years 5 weeks ago

Posted on Justia .com was the settlement agreement by Scentblocker and Scott Schultz in the remaining 9 state lawsuits. This will start to get interesting for the remaining defendants.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetail swamp wrote 4 years 2 weeks ago

Follow up on ScentBlocker -

It looks like they are the winner by the Federal Courts. Works as claimed and even better.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

In re:

Activated Carbon-Based Hunting
Clothing Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Multidistrict Litigation
No. 09-md-2059 (RHK/JJK)

STIPULATED ORDER FOR SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs commenced this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons against Robinson Outdoors, Inc. and Robinson Outdoor Products, LLC
(“Robinson”) for alleged damages suffered from the marketing of carbon-lined hunting
clothing. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunctive relief, damages and attorneys’ fees for
alleged violations of various state consumer protection statutes and other laws. The
Plaintiffs for themselves and the Defendants for themselves hereby stipulate to this Final
Order for Settlement.
The findings stipulated herein are for settlement purposes only. They are not
admissible for purposes of determining the liability of other Defendants.
2

FINDINGS

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and has
jurisdiction over relief against Robinson. Venue in this district is proper.
2. Plaintiffs and Robinson stipulate and agree to this Order to settle and
resolve all matters in dispute arising from the Complaint to the date of entry of the Order.
Robinson does not admit any of the allegations of the Complaint, other than the
jurisdictional facts. Plaintiffs and Robinson stipulate and agree that this Order constitutes
a settlement pursuant to Rule 408.
3. Robinson waives all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge
or contest the validity of this Order.
4. Robinson has used the phrase “odor elimination” in connection with
hunting clothing apparel and other products.
5. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that none of Robinson’s
advertising of its “odor eliminating technology” products for at least the past three years
has used the term “100%,” “all,” “completely” or “totally” in referring to efficacy.
6. Robinson also maintains and the parties stipulate that its advertising of its
“odor eliminating technology” products for at least the past three years has used words
that further qualify this language indicating that carbon-embedded clothing cannot totally
eliminate odor. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that Robinson’s advertising
in the past three years, taken in context, implies only odor reduction.
7. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that Robinson’s advertising
over the last three years advocated a multiple phase process using all Robinson’s
3

products in combination so that the hunter has the best possible opportunity to eliminate
odor.
8. Robinson’s current advertising graphics depict how its “odor eliminating
technology” products work (i.e., that odor goes into the carbon), and Robinson maintains
and the parties stipulate that the graphic is not a depiction of the specific percentage of
odor adsorption.
9. The parties stipulate that carbon can adsorb human odor. The parties
stipulate that the amount of carbon in the product and the process used to embed the
carbon to the product impacts the carbon’s effectiveness. The parties further stipulate
that Robinson’s carbon-embedded clothing contains substantially more carbon and uses a
different application process than other carbon-embedded hunting clothing products
currently on the market. Robinson has produced evidence of expert testing that
establishes that its garments containing activated carbon are effective at blocking the
transmission of odor through the garments and the amount of carbon used and the process
by which the carbon is embedded in the liner of the hunting clothing makes the odor-
blocking ability of the Robinson products more effective at reducing human odor than
other hunting garments containing carbon as well as non-carbon hunting garments.
10. Robinson has provided evidence of expert testing that establishes that,
after washing and drying, its carbon fabrics continue to be effective at reducing odor
permeation.
4

11. Robinson has provided expert testing that shows that after washing and
drying its carbon fabrics are “reactivated” and such clothing is restored to some extent for
continued beneficial use.
12. Robinson denies all the allegations and claims made by the Plaintiffs in
this and the related actions.
13. The parties have agreed to settle all claims that have been brought or
could have been brought against the other parties and forever release and discharge each
other from all possible claims except for performance of the settlement obligations.
14. The Court adopts these facts for purposes of this Order.
ORDER

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING RELIEF

II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use its phrase “odor eliminating
technology” but only in conjunction with other words or phrases that expressly make
clear that the clothing in question can only reduce the release of human odor. Robinson
may not use the phrases “elimination” or “odor eliminating” or “scent eliminating” alone
or in conjunction with words or graphics that say or depict “scent-free,” “odor free,”
“100%,” “all” or “every trace” or “every bit” of odor as removed by the clothing.
Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use the word “regenerate” or
“reactivate” as a description of the process of removal of some trapped odor from the
clothing, as long as they do not include additional words or graphics that say or depict
5

regeneration or reactivation as a process that will restore the clothing to pristine or like
new condition.
RELEASE

III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

Any and all claims (except for performance of the settlement obligations) that the
Plaintiffs have against the Defendants and any of their officers, directors, shareholders,
members, employees, agents, affiliates and attorneys, of whatever nature, whether known
or unknown, from the beginning of time, are hereby dismissed, discharged and satisfied
in full.
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this
matter for purposes of construction, modification and enforcement.

ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

IV. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to Federal Rule 54(b), that there is no
just reason for delay and the Clerk of Court shall immediately enter this Order as a final
judgment as to relief against Robinson.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from treysmith01 wrote 3 years 26 weeks ago

good post. i like it.

http://www.treysmithblog.com

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)