Scent Lok Update

[blacktailslayer]

Here is the newest article on the case.

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

Loc: Atlanta 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.

Edited May 18, 2010 by blacktailslayer

[wtnhunt]

Guess they forgot the "forget the wind just hunt" ads. Advertising is what it is. Everyone wants to be better and gain an advantage, some things realy work as advertised and some don't work at all.

What exactly is TR Michels(sp) and the "hunters" of this case proposing to do for all those folks he/they believes are/were misled, or is this just their own personal vendetta against the company? Did they lose hunting success as a result of the scent lok brand?

Personally I have had no better luck with scent lok clothes than what I have had with just good old common sense good scent care precautions, but like anyone else noone twisted my arm and made me buy the scentlok stuff I have, and don't think my buying those clothes gives me any right to a frivilous lawsuit. Matter of fact cabelas had the stuff at prices that was not much more than any other quality non carbon clothing lines. The quality of the cabelas lines are great quality stuff though and guess if I had the opportunity to again buy something that was scent lok that cost a few bucks more I might still buy the scent lok branded line just because I know it will most likely be a quality line.

Guess my last question here for you on this is; why are you so compelled to continue to bring this up and how many other forums are you sharing this on, is this to inform us that scentlok is a gimmick or do you have something against those companies involved?

[blacktailslayer]

I have never fallen for the ads and never have bought the products. I'm just sharing so hunters can read the truth. There are numerous new hunters that get on these websites every day that have no idea what has been going on. They have a right to know that these companies have lied about their products. I think the U.S. have come to think it is ok for companies to lie to consumers and say it is ok. I'm don't think it is right in any way. Look how well companies like "Primos" have advertise their scent control products. Those companies in the lawsuit should never have said 100% of the time.

[blacktailslayer]

I just found this out for those that care. If you want to get your money back from Scent Lok, contact [email protected]. It is FREE.

I have a link that talks about the case if anyone is interested.

Edited May 18, 2010 by blacktailslayer

[ChrisSeb53]

Those companies in the lawsuit should never have said 100% of the time.

Now we are getting too technical.. thats almost as bad as the lady that spilled mcdonalds coffee on herself... if the products dont work at all and they say they do then yes those companies are in the wrong... but when you get technical about wording you're just lazy and trying to make a quick buck

[wtnhunt]

They have a right to know that these companies have lied about their products. I think the U.S. have come to think it is ok for companies to lie to consumers and say it is ok. I'm don't think it is right in any way. Look how well companies like "Primos" have advertise their scent control products. Those companies in the lawsuit should never have said 100% of the time.

I don't think people in this country think it is ok for companies to lie to them and think that is a weak generalization. There are advertising and consumer protection laws that vary by state if you care to research them. Just because I may not think a product works as advertised does not necessarily mean the company lied to me though. Easy to twist and misinterpret things. Of course there are deceptive practices in marketing all around us and NO that does not make that right in any way and I think it is despicable for any company to intentionally make fraudulent or false claims about their products.

On the scent lok case that you have been sure to bring up several times I have not heard anywhere that there is any proven factual evidence that carbon suits don't give even the slightest advantage to a hunter. We have all seen Waddell and other pros get busted while wearing the top of the line carbon suits, there is no 100 percent scent free and you know that as a hunter. If these clothes even give a hunter confidence boost because they think it is giving them an advantage and that makes them hunt longer holding out on that chance would you not agree it might make them more successful? If you get right down to it there could be lawsuits against a lot of manufacturers of outdoor related products and spokespersons for those products who endorse and claim to use them. Is a $300 set of scent lok clothes versus a $250 set of non scent lok clothes a huge difference and how in the world is there a way to compensate someone on what they may claim as their losses.

[blacktailslayer]

I think Scent-lok would have been just fine if they never claimed people could hunt 360 degrees and that it covered 100% of human scent. They should have advertised like Primos does their scent control products.

I don't have any problem if people still want to wear the clothing or if they think it makes them more successful. I would say keep it up and good luck. I just think people have the right to know that it does not work as claimed in all of their advertisments over the years. There were and probably still people out there that really believe in the false advertising and may see this on the internet for the very first time. I would assume realtree.com gets new members and people viewing the website for the first time every day. This is a thread for those people.

Edited May 19, 2010 by blacktailslayer

[dbHunterNY]

I still think that stuff helps a little bit. I'll still wear it. I think some of it's very functional and nice gear, at least the stuff I've got anyway. It was a marketing approach that'd take advantage of a consumer who may not be as smart, but there's ads for "As Seen on TV" stuff all the time and nobody seems to care. So many people wouldn't buy it if it was junk. I think the legal suite is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

[elkoholic]

I believe that "buyer beware" is always the best practice. If one is going to sue for false advertising, then 90% of advertisements are false or misleading. I would also question the reason for the lawsuit. Trying to make some easy money I suppose. Maybe I will give it a try, as money is a little tight these days. Personally, I would target Gore-Tex, both the makers and the sellers, as it has never kept my feet or body dry and certainly is not waterproof and breathable. Good grief!

[Doc]

So someone has finally taken these manufacturers to task for treating us all like a bunch of dummys. Well, good for them. Over the years, I have seen more than a few product makers simply trying to throw products on the market, make outrageous claims about what they will do and rake in the money of the gullible for as long as they can keep up the charade. Sure, that old phrase "Let the buyer beware" does apply, but outright lying and deception in marketing practices is not right either and should not be condoned by anyone.

I know, hunters just like fishermen, are natural born suckers who will buy anything that promises easy success. That still does not make it right for these predators to take advantage through dis-honesty. Unfortunately, I would not expect any of this to all of a sudden bring honesty and integrity into marketing practices. Quite to the contrary. I am sure that most of them rely on the fact that they will never be caught or that no one will ever take the time and money to make an issue of their deceitful motives and practices. And when they do get caught, it is merely a cost of doing business. So this kind of tactic of deceit will undoubtedly continue. But at least we can take solice in the fact that in this one case, it appears that justice will be done. Hoo-ray for that!

Doc

[redkneck]

What exactly is TR Michels(sp) and the "hunters" of this case proposing to do for all those folks he/they believes are/were misled, or is this just their own personal vendetta against the company?

How did TR get brought up? Did I miss something? Wasn't he the guru that once graced us on here with his infinite outdoor wisdom?

[wtnhunt]

How did TR get brought up? Did I miss something? Wasn't he the guru that once graced us on here with his infinite outdoor wisdom?

They seem to me to somehow be linked John. This member has copied and pasted quite a bit of TR Michels stuff and supported it as well as making sure that every 2 to 3 months that we get an update on where the scent lok case is at. Pretty sure it was TR Michels who started all this lawsuit stuff against scent lok and that member was banned from here more than once if I remember correctly.

[blacktailslayer]

Very well said Doc.

[ruttinbuc]

The only ones making any money on this are the lawyers and the original plaintiffs. There is no class action lawsuit. We get to hear that it was all a hoax.,..

My first encounter with any scent lok product was at a little local show. A guy hawking the stuff asked if I had shot a deer that past season. After I told him no, he told me it is because you stink. Well to make a long story short the hair on the back of my neck stood up and my brother was leading me away from the booth...

[redkneck]

HAHAHA! Mike that's funny! I have never owned a Scent-Lok product, like William said, some common sense and a little discipline will get you a long way. I've always been skeptical of active carbon's ability to remain active over time, not to mention I feel a lot if not most of the human odor is from our respiration.

As for the lawsuit...... caveat emptor

As for TR... if I need someone to tell me what I'm doing wrong, I'll ask my wife.

[wtnhunt]

As for TR... if I need someone to tell me what I'm doing wrong, I'll ask my wife.

LMBO. My wife reads here on occasion I better be discrete, but that is hilarious.:D:D

[redkneck]

It was funny, but totally the truth!

[Turkeygirl]

Some of you have seen all the deer I've taken...and to think I did that all without Scentlok,lol.

[redkneck]

They seem to me to somehow be linked John. This member has copied and pasted quite a bit of TR Michels stuff and supported it as well as making sure that every 2 to 3 months that we get an update on where the scent lok case is at. Pretty sure it was TR Michels who started all this lawsuit stuff against scent lok and that member was banned from here more than once if I remember correctly.

I read TR's page on "Activated Carbon Science" which was loaded throughout with what looked like "reader testimonials" praising TR for being front and center looking out for the little guy. What a crock... I call BS. If nothing else the guy is pretentious as all get out. I don't believe a word of it.

[Doc]

Don't we all get just a little irritated when we read or hear some manufacturer making outrageous claims that we suspect deep down are completely bogus? Isn't it just a little bit of an insult to our intelligence that some of these characters think that we hunters as a specific segment of the population are so gullible and stupid that with enough slick marketing, they can sell us anything? Don't we all get just a little upset that there are predators out there trying to take advantage of fellow hunters?

If this lawsuit does nothing else, perhaps it can provide just a little satisfaction and reinforcement of the fact that there are limits as to how much manufacturers can ignore honesty and integrity when dealing with the public. Sure, the actual impact will be tiny, but it does make one feel pretty good when someone finally gets called on this kind of fraudulent activity in a public and official way. This lawsuit also provides a strong reminder that manufacturers and resellers are not above lies and deceit, and it just may put a lot of these claims under a more powerful light of scrutiny by the hunting public, rather than just accepting claims that sound official and scientific and are designed basically to flim-flam the public.

Doc

Edited May 20, 2010 by Doc

[blacktailslayer]

Here is a letter sent to people asking questions about the case.

Quote:

"Thank you for contacting us about the recent Scent Lok decision. Contrary to some posts on internet forums, getting a refund or some other amount of money back (such as the extra amount you paid for Scent Lok over the cost of the same garment without Scent Lok) is not as simple as just contacting us.

In the Minnesota case, the Court did not certify a class of Minnesota purchasers of Scent Lok clothing. So, the only way we can seek a refund for Minnesota hunters is if they hire us to represent them. As we have done with other hunters, if we decide to represent you, we would do so on a contingent basis, meaning that we will only get paid if we prevail.

Proposed class action cases are pending for hunters in California, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, Indiana, New York and Michigan. We will be moving the Court on July 2, 2010 for certification of classes of hunters in those states. If you live in one of these states and would like to join these cases, please let me know.

If you would like us to represent you, either individually or a class representative for hunters in your state, please fill out this questionnaire. Then, we will give you a call to discuss.

The Court has only issued an Order on the question of whether the products can eliminate odor. Many of you have asked whether the product can reduce odor, and, if so, how much. In the coming weeks, we will be posting on our website (heinsmills.com/scent-lok.html) information about this question and the question of how much the product can be reactivated.

Much of the information in the lawsuit has been designated as “confidential” by defendants. We intend to ask the Court to unseal the scientific testing."