# Scent-Lok Officials Respond to Minnesota District Court Ruling



## AT News (Jun 5, 2009)

For Immediate Release: Scent-Lok Officials Respond to Minnesota District Court Ruling

Last week, the United States District Court in Minnesota issued an opinion in a lawsuit brought in September 2007 by five Minnesota hunters against ALS Enterprises, the manufacturer of Scent-Lok products, and some of its retail partners. The court ruled in ALS’s favor on some issues, and against ALS on others. On a narrow legal issue, the court determined that the word “eliminate” in some of Scent-Lok’s advertisements could only mean eliminate 100% of odor, and therefore some of these advertisements were false.

ALS respectfully disagrees with the court's ruling that "odor eliminate" can only mean 100% elimination. There are many products on the market advertised as "eliminating" some condition and people understand that they do not eliminate the condition 100%. A search of the term “eliminate odor” produced over 1.9 million references to the term. A search of “odor eliminator” produced 281,000 results.

Of note, the court’s ruling does not relate to the efficacy of Scent-Lok products to perform in the field. Scent-Lok products work, and work well. Laboratory tests, including tests conducted in the lawsuit show that Scent-Lok carbon-containing clothing dramatically outperforms no-carbon clothing at adsorbing odors. 

In a survey of Minnesota hunters conducted as part of the litigation, almost 80% of hunters who purchased activated-carbon clothing reported that they were very satisfied or satisfied with the performance of their odor control hunting clothing. 
Survey experts noted that this score was very high for this type of survey. 

Scent-Lok Technologies stands by its products and their ability to dramatically reduce human odor levels in the field to help hunters get close to game. Our extremely low return rate for odor issues suggest that our engineering is sound and our tests provide correlation to field success. That is why Scent-Lok offers an unconditional satisfaction guarantee. 

ALS intends to appeal the court’s ruling and to continue to actively defend against this lawsuit.


----------



## bowhntng4evr (Dec 18, 2009)

I think that all manufacturers exaggerate the attributes of their products to sell more. Scent Lok does say Forget the wind Just Hunt. No product is 100% going to eliminate your scent from the noses of deer. They can only help at reducing it to a level that makes them think you are farther away than you are. Scent Lok clothing is already loaded up with smells when you get them anyway. They are manufactured in a factory in China and sent to the US to sit on store shelves until us hunters buy them. You can never get them clean fully either. To regenerate carbon clothing, you have get them hotter than your dryer could ever get. All scent lok can do is contain the smells from getting out of the clothing and alerting deer.


----------



## LIMBHANGER 36 (Aug 2, 2004)

bowhntng4evr said:


> I think that all manufacturers exaggerate the attributes of their products to sell more. Scent Lok does say Forget the wind Just Hunt. No product is 100% going to eliminate your scent from the noses of deer. They can only help at reducing it to a level that makes them think you are farther away than you are. Scent Lok clothing is already loaded up with smells when you get them anyway. They are manufactured in a factory in China and sent to the US to sit on store shelves until us hunters buy them. You can never get them clean fully either. To regenerate carbon clothing, you have get them hotter than your dryer could ever get. All scent lok can do is contain the smells from getting out of the clothing and alerting deer.


Scent Blocker says "forget the wind just hunt", not Scent Lok.


----------



## CodicaBowhunter (Jan 29, 2009)

SERIOUSLY!!!! Who files a lawsuit like this. The guys that did are just dragging out into the public that they are complete idiots. I would like to assume that anyone who buys this product, "including me" knows that it's not 100% scent elimination. If you don't like it...Don't buy it.


----------



## baird794 (Dec 2, 2006)

it's just a get rich program, just like the women who suid mcdonald's cause she got coffee from there and spilled it on herself and got burnt and she won in court. now who doesn't no coffee isn't hot.


----------



## BayouBob (Apr 9, 2007)

Like many suits, this one was generated by lawyers looking to make a big buck. Our system makes us subsidize a group of people who otherwise couldn't make a living in the real world. They shop for clients to file suits. Manufacturers, doctors and others pay either to defend themselves or to pay claims. The cost gets passed directly to the customer. Reign in the lawyers and society is far better off.


----------



## the big bang (May 24, 2010)

It looks like the courts have ruled in favor of ScentBlocker (robinson) - ScentBlocker works as claimed and event better that I had originally thought. Thank you ScentBlocker


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.


----------



## Re:current (Aug 21, 2010)

CodicaBowhunter said:


> SERIOUSLY!!!! Who files a lawsuit like this. The guys that did are just dragging out into the public that they are complete idiots. I would like to assume that anyone who buys this product, "including me" knows that it's not 100% scent elimination. If you don't like it...Don't buy it.



Yeah not cool at all. You could argue both sides all day, though... 

I'm from the school of use equipment that gives you confidence and makes you feel like you have better odds in the woods and buy it from a reputable source.
I have no doubt that carbon scent suits have served a purpose for me. It makes me feel better if I have a clean, uncontaminated outfit that is _also_ carbon-lined. Gotta be realistic, though...don't go out there tearing ass in your bibs all morning,wind at your back, and expect to shoot a booner.

I can see where if a shady company makes some outrageous claim that they cannot support, then they ought to be subject to penalty. Ideally, that penalty would be nobody buy it and let their business fail! 
On the other hand, it's saddening to see individuals dark enough to go after an established brand (like scent-lok) who isn't maliciously deceiving their customers. That's greed!... in this case, it serves no one except themselves. Perhaps competitors see some upside, but really, I think it casts a shadow on the entire scent elim. category, if you ask me.


----------



## DeltaKiloGolf (Aug 1, 2009)

*Might be a get rich program...*



baird794 said:


> it's just a get rich program, just like the women who suid mcdonald's cause she got coffee from there and spilled it on herself and got burnt and she won in court. now who doesn't no coffee isn't hot.



I agree, (who does this?) but need to say about the mcdonalds case... mcdonalds tested the consumer response.. and found direct correlation to "coffee temperature" and "sales". They began to sell coffe at above 205F, which was now entering much higher than most coffee sellers (scalding), without making any mod to the packaging. In other words, handing a "driver" a sloppy, loose, grenade, for allpractical purposes. The woman had reconstructive surgery on her privates, and in the end was "awarded" like.. 3 days of mcdonald coffee sales' profits. I think she got a bad rap from most people who think this is an outrage. HOw does this relate to the post? I doubt hunters suffered reconstructive surgery or harm, but the clothes should do what they say it does. I was never convinced that it did or did not. so Its a moot case to me.


----------



## 1shinytop (Jun 30, 2010)

if scent loc works so well, why aren't drug runners wrapping their drugs in scent loc suits to fool the drug sniffing dogs? just sayin!


----------



## hookiepete (Jul 30, 2011)

*log 6 can do that*



bowhntng4evr said:


> I think that all manufacturers exaggerate the attributes of their products to sell more. Scent Lok does say Forget the wind Just Hunt. No product is 100% going to eliminate your scent from the noses of deer. They can only help at reducing it to a level that makes them think you are farther away than you are. Scent Lok clothing is already loaded up with smells when you get them anyway. They are manufactured in a factory in China and sent to the US to sit on store shelves until us hunters buy them. You can never get them clean fully either. To regenerate carbon clothing, you have get them hotter than your dryer could ever get. All scent lok can do is contain the smells from getting out of the clothing and alerting deer.


i have personally used an machine called log6 that will do what you claim to be impossible. i had a whitetail deer rated at a 210 knock an arrow off my rest it was so close to me. it stood on my leg. this was after i bought my vertigo and put it in my log6 unit. here is a link maybe you should check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRkh-gV35Fk


----------



## GaBear (Jun 17, 2002)

Guys for the record Scent blocker has to buy its Patent from Scent Lok. Records show that the owners of Scent Lok own the Patent


----------

