Plaintiffs In “Scent-Lok” Case Claim Facts Hidden And Conspiracy
Posted by Tom Remington on September 26, 2007
In a class action lawsuit filed in the state of Minnesota by Mike Buetow of Shakopee, Theodore Carlson of Edina, Gary Richardson Jr. of St. Paul and Joe Rohrbach of Shakopee, Plaintiffs claim that there was no way for anyone who was interested in the odor eliminating clothing to investigate to find facts. They also claim that ALS Enterprises, Inc. of Muskegon, Michigan as well as Gander Mountain Co., Cabela’s Inc., Bass Pro Shops Inc. and Browning Arms Co., conspired to keep the truth from consumers.
2. Since 1992, Defendants have uniformly misrepresented to consumers that their odor eliminating clothing “innovation” would not only eliminate 100% of human odors, but could also be reactivated or regenerated in a household dryer after the clothing has become saturated with odors. Defendant’ representations regarding the ability of their so-called innovative odor eliminating clothing are false. Defendants’ odor eliminating clothing has very little, if any, odor eliminating capabilities and cannot be reactivated or regenerated in a household dryer.
3. By making false, fraudulent and misleading statements to consumers, Defendants have deceived thousands of consumers into purchasing odor eliminating clothing. Hunters buy Defendants’ odor eliminating clothing only for its purported ability to eliminate all human odors and to be regenerated for repeated use. Consumers have been duped into spending significant amounts of money on a product that does not work as represented and as a result, Plaintiffs have been harmed by Defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations.
This clearly lays out the strategy I believe of the Plaintiffs in regards to proving the public was duped. Their claim that the clothing eliminated human odors 100% and that it could be “reactivated” or “regenerated” in a dryer was deliberately false and that the manufacturers of the clothing knew it.
This is still not going to be an easy case to prove. This kind of false advertising saturates the consumer markets today and has for years. I think the Plaintiffs are going to have to show how this case is really any different.
The other part of their case involves the conspiracy theory. Plaintiffs are claiming that ALS Enterprise, Inc. along with Gander Mountain, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela’s and Browning Arms, knew the products did not work and they worked together to keep this information from the public.
In the filed lawsuit, the Plaintiffs make their initial accusations for a conspiracy theory this way.
Defendants conspired to uniformly deceive consumers. Defendants’ fraud could not have been as pervasive or remained undetected for as long as it did in the absence of Defendants’ conspiracy to misrepresent the efficacy and attributes of their odor eliminating clothing. Each Defendant manufactured and sold the exact same odor eliminating clothing as a licensee of Defendant ALS. The misrepresentations of each Defendant are dependent on the uniform misrepresentations of the other Defendants- if one Defendant had exposed the lie of its competitor’s clothing, it would have revealed its own lies. Defendants agreed to uniformly, and as a group, misrepresent to consumers that their odor eliminating clothing eliminates human odors and can be reactivated or regenerated in a household dryer. Defendants also conspired to suppress and conceal the truth about the odor eliminating clothing sold by the other Defendants - the same clothing they were also selling. Defendants failed to disclose material facts to consumers about their own and their competitor’s odor eliminating clothing. As a result of Defendants’ agreement to suppress the truth and maintain a uniform lie, the conspiracy is able to achieve the deception that any one Defendant could not have achieved individually.
Proving conspiracies is a very difficult thing to do. Making a claim about the prospects of conspiracy among these retail giants and proving it is some different. I would have to assume that the Plaintiffs have substantial evidence to prove their accusations.
Further along in the filed lawsuit, the Plaintiffs get into more specifics about the conspiracy. Plaintiffs say that any Defendants could not have discovered that the scent blocking clothing did not work “despite reasonable and diligent investigation”. They further claim that this effort would have been hampered “because of Defendants’ failure to disclose and active concealment of their fraud”.
Once again the suit is claiming that all the Defendant’s named in the suit were not only aware that the clothing didn’t work but that they all actively participated in covering it up making it impossible for consumers to find out the truth.
The suit then gets into more specifics about the actions taken by different Defendants to cover up.
52. Defendant ALS has published in national publications articles responding to criticism of Defendants’ odor eliminating clothing. Defendant ALS defends the purported science behind Defendants’ odor eliminating clothing and provides other Defendants with the same information to respond to doubters and critics. Defendant ALS employed numerous outdoor writers and hunters to promote its odor eliminating clothing and to provide misinformation about its efficacy. Defendant ALS relies heavily on
testimonials from hunters purporting to have had success while employing Defendants’ odor eliminating clothing and raving about its odor eliminating capabilities.53. Defendant ALS also instructed its employees to respond to messages posted in internet chat rooms that questioned Defendants’ representations regarding the ability of their odor eliminating clothing to eliminate all human odors. To certain individuals who have complained about or questioned the ability of Defendants’ odor eliminating clothing, Defendant ALS has consistently responded by citing to scientific testing, by stating that many factors can contribute to an unsuccessful hunt, and by suggesting that the clothing may not have been properly cared for or handled - not by disclosing the truth that the claims regarding the ability of its odor eliminating clothing were false. Defendant ALS’s founder himself, Greg Sesselman, has responded in writing to doubters by citing to scientific studies and testimonials as evidence of the efficacy of Defendant ALS’s clothing in eliminating human odors and being regenerated or reactivated.
The Plaintiffs make claims of active conspiracy against Cabela’s.
54. On its website chat rooms, Defendant Cabela’s also removed postings by some users who questioned Defendants’ odor eliminating clothing and challenged the ability of Defendants’ odor eliminating clothing to eliminate odor and be regenerated or reactivated in household dryers.
While I understand that I am only looking at the full lawsuit filed in the state of Minnesota, I would still have to say that the Plaintiffs are going to have their hands full proving their claims in a court of law unless they have substantial proof. Proving conspiracy is difficult to do and I might even suggest they would need witnesses at a level other than those whose duty it is to manage a message board, to prove malicious intent to defraud the public as a group.
None of us can blame a company for promoting and standing up for their product, however there are limits, many of which we as consumers are subject to all day and everyday. In my opinion, from the information that I have looked at in this lawsuit, perhaps the strongest evidence the Plaintiffs have is in the Defendants’ marketing that their clothing blocks human odor 100%. Any product making a claim to 100% certainly opens the door to challenges of accuracy.
The other issue is the reactivation of the charcoal within the clothing. Their case may be enhanced if they can bring solid reports from the military that their use of such clothing for handling chemicals is limited in use and disposed of after saturation because it is rendered useless or ineffective.
While these things may not be accurate advertising and marketing, one has to question whether it is in line with a class action lawsuit and certainly whether all these companies conspired to dupe the consumers.
It will be an interesting case that will have a broad and sweeping effect on all of us.
For those interested in viewing the entire lawsuit, may do so at this link (pdf) provided by the staff of Skinny Moose Media.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
From a marketing standpoint, you never make the claim that your product works 100% of the time. You always want to leave yourself a little wiggle room. If you don’t, lawsuits like this happen.
September 26th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I am still torn on what this issue is going to do for the hunting consumer. I’m afraid it is going to hurt us more than help.
I think the plaintiff’s have their hands full to prove this case, but I will be sure to keep up-to-date on how this plays out!
September 26th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I believe the scent lock claims are pure bullchps and they can’t stop that from stinking to high heaven. How could it keep a sweaty stinking hot human scent contained.
I think the whole concept was ridiculous from the beginning. Irregardless of the fact there are other scammers and con artist out there in the hunting industry or other wise, I’m thrilled to see liars get slammed.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
[...] over at the Black Bear Blog, continued his coverage on the Scent-Lok lawsuit with some details about the case. I am watching this one very closely and I am very curious to [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Why not sell their product as a scent reducer and not a scent eliminator. Eliminator sounds a lot cooler but I would be a lot more apt to believe it reduces your scent rather than completely shuts it out.
Then that leaves them room for error and then they can even toss out percentages like in these types of conditions your suit works the best and reduces your scent up to 92%. If you use them in hot and wet conditions it only works up to 74%-78%
See I can make stuff up too.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Well, I too am one of the world’s largest skeptics and never bought into the tale that this stuff worked but then again there’s a lot of things I don’t think work - hair growth hormones, anti-aging cream, diet pills, etc. etc.
Regardless, I still think the Plaintiffs will have a difficult time proving conspiracy. I said before, if they were regularly stating 100% effective, then they may have SOMETHING there.
In the meantime, if anyone is interested, I have a bridge in New York City for sale. It might need a little paint but it’s guaranteed to last into the 22nd century……100%
September 27th, 2007 at 8:14 am
The law firm that filed the Scent-lok fraud suit put up a webpage about it, but there isn’t too much info. http://www.heinsmills.com/scent-lok.html
September 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Thanks for that information. Looks like they are recruiting business. Ha! Actually, I’m not a lawyer but there may be a law that stipulates that any class action lawsuit is required to notify the public and provide an opportunity for them to get involved.
Any legal experts, particularly from Minnesota, that might have a better take on this, please sound off.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Activated Charcoal has to be reheated to 1700 degrees F to “reactivate” or get rid of it’s consumed odors! Your dryer does not get that hot and if it did, it would be a ‘clothes disposer’ not a dryer.
Tom”"”Regardless, I still think the Plaintiffs will have a difficult time proving conspiracy. I said before, if they were regularly stating 100% effective, then they may have SOMETHING there.”"”
Well guys, all defendants named in the suit have their regularly scheduled shows on the different ‘outdoor’ shows and all have been touting scentlock products for several years. Drury outdoors is the primary promoter of these suits but have they been listed on the defendant side?
Finally, someone standing up for hunters not getting screwed again!
September 29th, 2007 at 5:52 am
if you have not tried scent lok, then i understand how you could be a sceptic. ive used it for 10 years and i can tell you with out a doubt that it works. as soon as i put their face mask on i had deer down wind of and never got busted. i am a scent fanatic. i shower in scent away soap, wash my cloths in scent-a-way wash, use scent free containers and never put on my hunting cloths until im out of my car. that said i was still getting busted down wind. as soon as i bought my scent-lok suit, game over. the first weekend out i downed 2 deer in one morning. 1 was 10 yards away & down wind from my ground blind. ever since then ive never looked back. i just bought my third set, because about every 3 years or so they wear out. the face mask & gloves wear out sooner about every 2 years. i dont know abut 100% effective but added with other scent control id say its pretty darn close. no i dont work for them, im an regular hunter. a hunter that wont go into the field without it.
id stake my name on it as a only field test can prove. if it didnt work id know it being the field as much as ive been the last ten years.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Matt - Thanks for sharing. It’s hard to argue with anyone who believes the way you do and has had success.
As I said, I am not a user so I can’t offer any experiences.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
What did humanity do before scent-lok?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Ha ha ha, I-37… Back then they were smarter than the animals they hunted! LOL
September 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
come on guys? did any of you “college” educated guys really really believe in this garage? It’s just about time someone sues them. The law suit is for us sportsman the only people it ann hurt are the “money” makers of the world. uga buga
September 30th, 2007 at 3:48 am
I had a penny in my watch pocket one time and a deer walked down wind of me with out hearing, seeing, or smelling me.
I’m selling those pennies for a buck a peice now.
If anybody wants one they are $1 plus shipping and handling.
Money back guaranteed to make you more invisible, stink less, and less loud than before your purchase.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Jack - You’re funny! I will buy one if it’s the right year!
So, I have a question. Are you trying to deceive us into believing that is true or are you simply implying we are all too stupid to know the difference?
What I am getting at cuts to the heart of the case. Two parts - The company advertises that Scent-Lok works 100% of the time and there was a conspiracy.
Is it the fault of the company for false advertising? Is it the fault of the consumer for being ignorant and believing, perhaps a case of “my government should take care of me”? Or a combination of all of the above?
Even though all these opinions probably will mean nothing when it comes to the court of law.
Thanks for the input Jack!
October 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Is it the fault of the company for false advertising?
Well I don’t think the consumer wrote those lies FOR the company? Who else’s fault could it be that they are liars and cheats? They bare the full responsibility for their own actions including lieing to consumers. It’s not a relative question and doesn’t matter to me one bit if it’s worse than this or not as bad as something else. If they deliberately lied, which I believe they did, then they are liars. They took people’s money based on the company’s word of the performance of the product they were selling. They are cheats.
There is nothing in the law allowing a person to commit fraud so long as they only cheat dumb people, smart people, or any one in between. Lieing and cheating is lieing and cheating. We have laws that deal with a lot of that.
They should be enforced.
Is it the fault of the consumer for being ignorant and believing, perhaps a case of “my government should take care of me”?
Use what ever slogan you want but since when is it wrong to expect some one to do the job you are paying them for? Is there something wrong with expecting the people charged with interpreting and enforcing the law to actually do that for the money they are paid?
If that’s wrong then the place to correct it is in the congress eliminating fraud and theft restrictions not paying a huge police state to back up a cheated citizen and then expecting it to be ignored.
example, it would be stupid to step in to traffic but it’s not legal to cross three lanes to hit them just because they are stupid.
Or a combination of all of the above?
Not a combination in my opinion. They each bare their individual responsibility. Being stupid normally caries a “stupid tax” attached, it’s still not acceptable to me for the rest of us to deliberately rob or take advantage every time we see some one carrying a “sign”. At least there are limits to what is legal.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Jack - I’m not disagreeing or agreeing. I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate if you will. I’m asking questions in hopes readers can weigh in with where the distribution of responsibility lies. You seemed to have voiced that quite clearly. Thanks
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Guess I do get a little windy.
Sorry if I killed the conversation.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Oh, I don’t think you killed the conversation! I want to hear what others are saying and what they think. I have said before I think this lawsuit will have an effect on all hunters to some degree. We need to pay attention and talk about it.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I have used Scent-Lok clothing for three years now and it works. I have had many deer and moose come down wind of me and they didn’t have a clue I was there. One deer walked 12 to 15 feet down wind while I was crouched down on the ground, he didn’t smell a thing until he crossed my foot trail. Refer to what Matt says for proper use. Did these guys use sealed containers, did they smoke, did they have a shower with scentless soap, did they use proper laundry detergent? Actually I can’t believe I got sucked in to writing this. I’m starting to think these guys are not even hunters, they should spend more time in their stands and less time in court. If they want to raise a big stink and have a lawsuit, they should have spilled hot coffee on their laps instead of dwelling on the 100% thing.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Vern,
You sound as bad as the advertisement for the suit. Just because you have had deer that close to you when you were wearing the suit does not prove the effectiveness of the product. There are many factors involved other than some carbon-lined suit. On top of that, do you have scientific proof that the other products like detergents, soaps, sprays, etc. work 100% of time? I bet the answer is no. Most of us buy products based on advertisements of some sort or based on what our friends tell us (which their information probably came from an advertisement) and thus it is easy to see how consumers can be misled.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Vern and Ben - Thanks for the input. I still am looking for just as much input on this case as to where the responsibility lies in this case. Is it all one-sided or is it split between producer and consumer?
Ben, I agree with what you are saying but what I want to know from readers is, who’s responsible for the products we buy. Are we supposed to have government make sure that everything we buy is what it claims to be or are we as consumers supposed to do our homework and figure it out. Or is it somewhere in between.
Personally I think anybody who would advertise a product as 100% effective is a joke.
I think the basis for my questioning is in trying to determine whether the lawsuit is the right tactic to deal with the problem?
If this lawsuit, at least that part of it in which it accuses the makers of Scent-Lok of false advertising, is won, then what can of worms are we going to open in regards to the other millions of products available to consumers today?
As you can see, I certainly have far more questions than answers.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I am a true beleiver in Scent-Lok, but nothing is 100% a 100% of the time! and are these guys the kind that get home from work all sweaty and stinky, throw on a scent lok suit and go hunting? what about their hands do they wear scent lok gloves? head cover? I tied it once and got busted! For many years i have been using both scent lok and scent killer spary and bath soap. There have been times when i got dreched with sweat been up a tree and still had deer down wind of me! is it the scent killer? is it the scent lok? no because nothing is 100% but do it right and it does work! and it is their own dumb fault for putting 100% effective! these guys are just lazy in their scent control and are looking for a quick dollar!
November 20th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I don’t use Scent-Loc and have had deer directly downwind of me without busting me … sometimes. But other times I’ve had deer downwind with a quartering wind and they have definitely scented me. Without a doubt it’s more complex than some would lead you to believe.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I have been using Scent Lok products for approximately 5 years. Since doing so, the times that I have been busted by deer have seen when I moved or heard me when I made noise, not when I was being scented by a deer or wild hogs. There have been times when I screwed up and made a noise or moved when I shouldn’t have so that a deer would turn and look directly at me. About half the time, if I stay still at that point, the deer may know that something is there but doesn’t seem to figure out what I am. While the deer may then wander off, it doesn’t blow, spooking everything else within hearing distance. The other half the time, well, busted is busted.
Part of my hunting is out of permament ground blinds. The blinds are made by building a wood framework, covering the framework in canvas and then brushing them in with cut brush. Over time, these blinds have become part of the landscape. I have tried hunting out of the same ground blinds both with and without scent loc. I have been much more sucessful in having animals get close to me when I was wearing scent loc as opposed to normal hunting clothes without scent loc. By close, on one occasion, I actually got tired of a button buck standing right in front of one of the blind’s windows. I was about to quit hunting for the morning anyway so I took an arrow with a judo point on it, stuck it through the window and poked that little buck in the butt. If that isn’t close to a game animal, I don’t know what is. Could I have done that if I hadn’t been wearing scent loc? I don’t know but I doubt it.
I can’t say what the case would be in instances where I am hunting from ladder stands. While I hunt from ladders, I haven’t tried hunting from one without scent loc. I will say that there have been a lot of times when I had deer directly down wind from me that they didn’t seem to scent me when I was wearing scent loc products.
I am not saying that scent loc or any similar products are perfect. Nothing man made is or ever will be perfect. I am saying that the products seem to work. Other bowhunters that I know feel the same way. Of the bowhunters that I know who have tried scent loc products, I don’t know of any who have tried them and then quit using them.
Finally, I am not employed or in any way compensated by any product manufacturer or retailor nor do I own any interest in any company making scent suppressent or eliminator products. I am both a bowhunter and a rifle hunter. I hunt in South and Central Texas. The opinions that I have expressed above are based upon my personal experience and observations. I also want to thank you for posting the lawsuit information and for continuing to update us on this situation.
Jim
December 10th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Just because you don’t see the deer wind you doesn’t mean a deer hasn’t winded you long before he got anywhere near you. Scent loc is not the “miracle” product that so many believe. It may help, but it is definitely not 100% effective. I don’t believe in the lawsuit at all, but companies should be careful so as not to mislead consumers. Along those same lines, consumers should not be so gullible as to believe everything they read. Bottom line: These guys are out for easy money. What a shame!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
If Scent Lok works as they say it does. Then a tracking dog would not be able to find a person dressed head to toe in Scent Lok right??…..yea wanta bet?
Another law suit should be the Deer Scent Industry. There are NOT enough does in this country to produce doe in estrous.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Hy believers and not believers:
Any news on this subject for this month?
Anything from the court of law?
I use a scent lok suit, head to toe, and the wild boars seem not to trace me. They come and eat, 40 yards away from me as if they were alone…
I must admit that im a scent lok fan (even,as you say, it doesnt work).
May 13th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I said it once and i say it 1,000X… nothing is 100%! did these guys get off work from a sweaty shop with grease on their hands? eat a greasy pizza for lunch? wash their hair with a reg. shampoo? use after shave in the morning/eve? did they prep. their dryer B/F putting SL in it? did they wash their hands with SC soap when handling the garments? did they store the garments in a SF bag?…and so on and so on…. just as hunters alone don’t they believe in scent control? use scent killer soap,shampoo,and spray on their equipment? i tried once.. got off of work from the nursery early(october), put on my SK gear and a group of does came by they were spooky but i expected that because i was dirty underneath my SK coveralls. but i had enough common knowledge as a hunter not to be upset at SK. i knew i was handling the garments not to the company’s specs. did i sue??? no because i have enough common scense that no matter who or what says 100% that is enough. yes SK should have never said 100%. however if one watches enough hunting shows and forums/blogs you just know… these lazy bozos are just out for a quick buck!!!! i shot my 151&3/8th P&Y buck down wind of me at 25yrds with snow blowing from behind me right at the buck! so tell these guys to learn how to hunt and have some common scense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just my opion!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
W.C. Fields once said, “there’s a sucker born every minute” and I reckon there is someone to take advantage of them born every minute, too! Most of these tykes never had enough experience hunting without “scent loc” to know the difference. Just because they believe it’s working doesn’t mean squat. Like the man said, let ‘em get all dressed up in their “goodies”, and lets see if my dog can’t track ‘em down. This crap stinks and I hope the truth blows the lid off!
Now, I wonder what the hell happened to this lawsuit? Did it hang out to dry, or did it burn up while getting “revitalized”?
May 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I’m checking now, but I believe the suit is still pending and will be tied up in the courts for a long time. Don’t look for any resolve anytime soon. I’ll see if I can find out the status.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
[...] state of Minnesota by Mike Buetow of Shakopee, Theodore Carlson … in line with a class action …http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2007/09/26/plaintiffs-in-scent-lok-case-claim-facts-hidden-and-cons…isdsscentiments mia bella candles Amsterdamseweg 24 1182hd amstelveen http://www.ross-simons.com what are [...]
May 25th, 2008 at 12:04 pm