# Injunction against ScentLok, Cabelas & Gander Mountain



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

Court Says Claims Fail Smell Test 
A Federal District Judge has ruled that ALS, the manufacturer of Scent Lok clothing has failed a smell test as it were with claims that the company had 'odor-eliminating technology' or 'odor eliminating clothing'. 

The same ruling says that Cabela's and Gander Mountain - both of which sell Scent Lok and their own private-label clothing are also guilty of deceptive advertising.

Scent Lok's advertising-at least in part- fails a Federal District Judge's smell test for odor elimination. 
The Court's ruling says the "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.

An injunction barring ALS/Scent Lok, Cabela's and Gander Mountain from "further deceptive practices" will be issued.

With that ruling, claims against the companies could move to trial. 

The case began in 2007 when Minnesota hunters Mike Buetow, Gary Steven Richardson, Jr, Joe Rohrbach, Jeff Brosi and Dennis Deeb, filed suit against ALS, Cabela's, Cabela's Wholesale and Gander Mountain, claiming their odor controlling clothing failed to perform as advertised. 

Their complaint alleged that the clothing did not "eliminate" odor, and could not be "reactivated or regenerated in a household (clothes) dryer after the clothing has become saturated with odors".

During the course of the lawsuit, scientists from both sides worked to prove-or disprove-the claims. 

As you can imagine, the results disagreed in all but one key area: both plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys and scientists agreed that carbon-embedded clothing cannot eliminate 100% of a hunter's odor.

In this case "eliminate" was the key decision point- the court ruled that the word "eliminate" meant "a complete removal" the same way a claim to remove roaches from a home would mean "all roaches" not just some. 

Some of the ads, however, went on to use phrases such as "complete scent elimination" "scent free" "works on 100% of your scent (100% of the time)" and "odor is eradicated". 

In the court's eyes, those claims were false and misleading - beyond any test of reasonableness.

Other ads, however, used enough language to qualify the claims they made. The Court tossed a claim for a declaratory judgement from the hunters on those advertisements.

So, you might ask, do the findings in the case prove that clothing really can't mask human scent?

Short answer, no. What it case has done is reiterate and reinforce the application of common sense to advertising messages - and consumer purchases. 

If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

:lol: there's a sucker born every minute, along with a con to take their money.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

That stinks...................... Sorry I could'nt resist.


----------



## richardjb (Apr 1, 2008)

Not a big surprise here.


----------



## BradN (Sep 25, 2007)

Minnesota hunters Mike Buetow, Gary Steven Richardson, Jr, Joe Rohrbach, Jeff Brosi and Dennis Deeb clearly have more money than sense. Why in the world would you waste your money (and the money would have to be substantial) to litigate this issue?


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

How sure are we that this article is genuine and before this point, unedited?

The only reason I ask is that while I can see asking for a refund, unless these Minnesota hunters are running their own line of clothing to compete directly against Scent-Lok, what compensation could they possibly be seeking that would outweigh the cost of the litigation? 

While I do see that there is in fact a gaping legal hole in Scent-Lok's advertising campaign, (by claiming that your product "eliminates" odor, rather than reducing it, you leave your self open to thesee kinds of claims) I can't see what compensation, aside from a refund, that they could reasonably ask for. Compensation from litigation is solely based on damages or percieved damages. Unless they somehow claim that they were injured as a result of, or somehow emotionally, or financially hurt by the alleged "false advertising claim" there's not a lot of angles they could work here. That's just wierd like there's a part of the puzzle missing or somehow changed.

And I get the fact that so far all that's been issued is an injuction to keep them from advertising their product further as scent eliminating rather than reducing, but with the cost associated with this type of legal action, I can't see why anyone would bother unless they had some really deep pockets and resentment to go along with it, because there's not a lot of ways they could be reimbursed for the expense of all the trouble.


----------



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> How sure are we that this article is genuine and before this point, unedited?


http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

WasatchOutdoors said:


> How sure are we that this article is genuine and before this point, unedited?
> 
> The only reason I ask is that while I can see asking for a refund, unless these Minnesota hunters are running their own line of clothing to compete directly against Scent-Lok, what compensation could they possibly be seeking that would outweigh the cost of the litigation?


The article doesn't state if the law suit was filed as a class action or not. In the case of a class action suit the compensation comes in the form of many people being able to claim "compensation". In this case perhaps a refund if they qualify to be included as part of the "class" that was affected.

The filing body (them dudes) can also receive legal expense reibursement from the defendant(s). Usually the reimbursement comes in the form of inflated legal fees and consultant fees for the researchers. It can amount to a lot of money. That's how all those enviro groups make the millions that they make by sueing the government on behalf of "those who cannot speek for themselves".


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

Something that I have said all along and have refused to buy ANY scent killer sprays or clothing. I simply choose not to spend my money on something that has made MILLIONS in the hunting world. To sue the companies is a bit childish and simply someone looking to gain a lot of money for NOTHING! I don't like that part but there seems to be a lot of low life people who are suit happy these days.


----------

