Scent-Lok Officials Respond To Minnesota District Court Ruling

[Scent-Lok Technology]

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.

Link

[wtnhunt]

Welcome to the forums. There used to be a member here(scentlok g designer or something like that) who was employed by scent lok if I remember correctly, have not seen that member on in some time, but was curious as to the other side of this.

Interesting to see the flip side of this and more details after repeatedly hearing from a supporter of the original claimant against scent lok and hearing their opinion.

Think most of us realize judges are in many cases not really so well suited for making decisions, personally think the term "eliminating" is a bit vague to rule that it had to mean 100 percent contained and can see where this ruling could lead way to several other frivilous suits against other manufacturers of scent "elimination" products on the market.

You may want to take a few minutes to look over this thread http://www.realtree.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98909.

[redkneck]

Thanks for posting the other side. Like William said, I think we all understand judges, and like the rat poison that "eliminates" rats, I kinda understand what it means, lol. Folks will file suit for any or even no reason these days. I've never owned nor plan to own scent-lok clothing, though I'm sure it works to an extent initially. The results of such litigation really doesn't affect my purchase decisions, though I can surely see the need for such damage control.

[Scent-Lok Technology]

I am that guy. My information didn't load, so i started a new account.

Because of the different proceedings still on going, this statement will be all I have right now, but stay tuned.

And from the entire Scent-Lok Team, thanks for the support over the last twenty years. We are proud of our rabid fan base and will continue to develop the best hunting products we can.

~Nick

[Flintlock1776]

Thanks for the update.

I'll side with the court's ruling and wait for the appeals to run their course until it is finally resolved either way.

I concur the "eliminates" could be interpreted by the court to be 100%. New verbiage on the product's marketing and the issue goes away.

I don't use your stuff but if you want to send me some to convince a Doubting Thomas, I'm willing to try and give my assessment.

Again, thank for the update.

It was a lot better than reading the rants on several forums some guy was spamming the board with "I'm calling out Scent Lock".

We are a country of law and that is how this dispute should be resolved.

[Doc]

Well, I guess everyone likes to play with words, but I think the intent of the phrasing was to convince prospective buyers that purchasing and wearing scent-lok clothing would remove scent concerns from hunting (especially when taken in context with the rest of the advertisements). To me that was a deceitful marketing tactic. I can't comment on the legal aspects of this battle over the word "eliminate", but the motivation for choosing that particular word is pretty clear to me.

Doc

[wtnhunt]

Well, I guess everyone likes to play with words, but I think the intent of the phrasing was to convince prospective buyers that purchasing and wearing scent-lok clothing would remove scent concerns from hunting (especially when taken in context with the rest of the advertisements). To me that was a deceitful marketing tactic. I can't comment on the legal aspects of this battle over the word "eliminate", but the motivation for choosing that particular word is pretty clear to me.

Doc

Lots of scent "eliminators" on the market. I am not defending scent lok here, but a little common sense goes a long ways. Actually I had made up my own mind that good scent practices with or without carbon suits is the key as I have tried carbon clothes with no greater results than using good care/storage of my hunting clothes.

Like I said before, with this judges ruling it would seem that all those other products marketed as "scent eliminators" (scent away, scent shield, dead down wind, white lightning, etc.......)may also potentially be targeted as deceptive, does that mean this watchdog group("hunters including this TR Michels) who is only looking out for us all will file suits against these companies soon too since that was supposedly their sole purpose for doing this. All those sprays imho work to some degree, but none could possibly be 100 percent effective at complete removal of all traces of scent. Been too many times we have seen the pros get busted and if there was a magic cure all scent "eliminator" one would think those guys with all the means to all the latest and greatest would have it and they would never get busted on scent.

[suro25]

Lots of scent "eliminators" on the market. I am not defending scent lok here, but a little common sense goes a long ways. Actually I had made up my own mind that good scent practices with or without carbon suits is the key as I have tried carbon clothes with no greater results than using good care/storage of my hunting clothes.

Like I said before, with this judges ruling it would seem that all those other products marketed as "scent eliminators" (scent away, scent shield, dead down wind, white lightning, etc.......)may also potentially be targeted as deceptive, does that mean this watchdog group("hunters including this TR Michels) who is only looking out for us all will file suits against these companies soon too since that was supposedly their sole purpose for doing this. All those sprays imho work to some degree, but none could possibly be 100 percent effective at complete removal of all traces of scent. Been too many times we have seen the pros get busted and if there was a magic cure all scent "eliminator" one would think those guys with all the means to all the latest and greatest would have it and they would never get busted on scent.

I agree.....

[buckee]

Lots of scent "eliminators" on the market. I am not defending scent lok here, but a little common sense goes a long ways. Actually I had made up my own mind that good scent practices with or without carbon suits is the key as I have tried carbon clothes with no greater results than using good care/storage of my hunting clothes.

Like I said before, with this judges ruling it would seem that all those other products marketed as "scent eliminators" (scent away, scent shield, dead down wind, white lightning, etc.......)may also potentially be targeted as deceptive, does that mean this watchdog group("hunters including this TR Michels) who is only looking out for us all will file suits against these companies soon too since that was supposedly their sole purpose for doing this. All those sprays imho work to some degree, but none could possibly be 100 percent effective at complete removal of all traces of scent. Been too many times we have seen the pros get busted and if there was a magic cure all scent "eliminator" one would think those guys with all the means to all the latest and greatest would have it and they would never get busted on scent.

Well said William. I'd be interested to hear what these hunters expected to get from this lawsuit.

Personally, I have always washed my hunting gear in baking soda, always. and use a "scent eliminator" spray for my face, hat and hair, along with a few drops of cover scent on my clothing. I've had deer walk right up to me, inches from my arrow. But, with that said, if I was a bit richer in my pocketbook..LOL, I'd probably have a bunch of scent-lok products in my storage bags as well.

It's all about concealment, and I don't understand why a couple of hunters would go out of their way, to pick on one particular "scent eliminating hunting product, over another, if there wasn't something in it for them.

[Bob LeBlanc]

It all boils down to the terminology...legally speaking, that is.

The fact of the matter is...it does not eliminate odour. It does help to control it...it does 'absorb' some of it...but it doesn't eliminate it.

For whatever reason, the group took it upon themselves to hold Scent-Lok to a standard of Truth in Advertising...the line has to be drawn somewhere.

A second contention of the group, which was not 'clarified' is that Scent-lok products cannot be rejuvenated in a household dryer...and, if I'm not mistaken, the courts agreed with that too.

Was that the case ?...(not arguing...just asking;))

Bob:confused:

[redkneck]

Kinda reminds me of the Clinton/Lewinsky period. Define: is

[dbHunterNY]

I do think the statement "forget the wind. just hunt." was a little bold and could be misleading, however most of us know what the clothing is intended to do by now. As I said before in another post the suite was pretty much a ridiculous idea and who knows what the hunters expected from it. Thanks for the info Nick. I hope you stop in again.

Oh yea... I wear carbon activated scent control clothing manufactured by ALS and I think it works very well. I don't plan on changing my mind either.

[Flintlock1776]

Court has ruled. Lets see if the appeals make any changes

[Rhino]

I recall when I bought my 1st set of carbon activated scent control clothing (Scent-Lok) some 15 years or so ago. The product's directions said, used properly the suit could reduce your scent profile up to 90%. I honestly don't recall ever reading anything else when I bought new suits over the years since then. I always kept in mind, if I did my part to reduce my scent profile as much as possible before putting on my suit, the 10% or so that didn't get absorbed was that much less. I also agree the statement "forget the wind..just hunt" was not bold, to say the least.

I still believe from years of personal experience that carbon activated scent control clothing works to help reduce your scent profile. I never believed it eliminated 100% of your scent. I'll keep wearing mine and expect the same results I've gotten in the past.

BTW...SLT poster...the old style inner liners work better than the newer type with the stretch style material. Just my $.02 bud.

Also...I have to wonder...was this judge an antihunter, PETA member, treehugger, etc. Get my drift. I know for a fact that some judges are swayed by their own personal beliefs. I'll bet we see the next phase of money grabbing lawyers going after any company making a product that claims it's an odor eliminater.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Rhino

[Doc]

Like I said before, with this judges ruling it would seem that all those other products marketed as "scent eliminators" (scent away, scent shield, dead down wind, white lightning, etc.......)may also potentially be targeted as deceptive, ......

And perhaps they all should if they are in the business of peddling products based on deceit and fraudulent claims. Personally, I don't have sympathy for scam artists and I equally have the same disdain for people who base their living on suckering in hunters to spending their hard earned money on products that do not do what they say they will do.

does that mean this watchdog group("hunters including this TR Michels) who is only looking out for us all will file suits against these companies soon too since that was supposedly their sole purpose for doing this.

In my opinion, if the rest of these companies are deceptive in their claims, I will be grateful to those who put their own time and money on the line in an attempt to stem the attitudes of contempt for honesty and integrity. There seems to be a feeling here that these guys are the "bad guys". Frankly I haven't heard anybody offer a good reason why these people bringing the lawsuit are doing anything wrong, or have some kind of evil motives. I'm for anyone who wants to make manufacturers think twice about their language and honesty in their claims.

All those sprays imho work to some degree, but none could possibly be 100 percent effective at complete removal of all traces of scent.

Actually, we can only take the manufacturer's word as to just how well ANY of these products actually work or whether or not they work to any extent at all. Try to prove it one way or the other.....lol. We are completely at the mercy of the integrity of the manufacturers when it comes to these claims.

Been too many times we have seen the pros get busted and if there was a magic cure all scent "eliminator" one would think those guys with all the means to all the latest and greatest would have it and they would never get busted on scent.

Yes, I think it is obvious that there is nothing yet that fulfills the claims that Scent-Lok was putting out. Further, they knew that when they created their ads. They were obviously willfully lying to sell their product. The law says that you cannot do that. I agree with the law.

Doc

[elkoholic]

Dictionary definition of eliminate: to get rid of; remove. That sums it up. "Forget the wind, just hunt". "Hunt 360 degrees". Those are the claims. Those statements concerning the effectiveness of Scent-Lok are outright lies. Only a fool would believe them, but then, that fool might just hire a lawyer. No one needs to spend hundreds of dollars on scent "eliminating" clothing to become a better hunter. False advertising? The simple answer. Yes.

[Goinghuntin]

Dictionary definition of eliminate: to get rid of; remove. That sums it up. "Forget the wind, just hunt". "Hunt 360 degrees". Those are the claims. Those statements concerning the effectiveness of Scent-Lok are outright lies.

You beat me to it elkoholic. I was going to pull up the dictionary definition too. To me, IMHO, if they're going to advertise elimination, it should eliminate 100%. Otherwise, it only reduced, not eliminated, the odor. Just my two cents.

Nathan

[Zambo]

I don't want to get in a word game with anyone, however I do use Scent-Lok. My opinion is that their product provides an added value to my hunt in the scent elimination process. This gives me extra confidence when that whitetail is coming in. As most of you know confidence is one of the biggest advantages in staying calm and executing when that animal is close. Even if it's not 100% Scent-Lok and scent eliminating spray go out on all my hunts.

[BamaTrae]

If you like it wear it, if not - don't. Hunter's shouldn't sue each other over such silly things. Just don't buy the thing you dont believe in. I have never felt that wearing the scent-loc made much of a difference in my hunt. So, I haven't bought anymore since the first couple of years it came out. But I wear it sometimes, cause it's camo.

Hunt the wind. That's the rule.

And scent-loc isn't the company that uses the tagline, "Forget the wind, just hunt" That's Scent Blocker.

[Jorden]

It was only a matter of time before something like happened. We live in a country where anyone can sue anyone at anytime for any reason, and win. Now obviously Scent-lok could have used better advertising slogans but any real hunter should know that completely ignoring the wind is a no-no. Im guessing these guys saw the opportunity to make some money off a big company and took advantage of it.

Me personally, I love my Scent-lok. I had many deer walk the same path I have, go down wind of me and not smell me, come from downwind so I know that it works, but eliminate all human odor...obviously not:hammer1:

Edited May 28, 2010 by Jorden

[Tim Andrus]

Jorden that comment/phrase.. forget the wind is from Scent Blocker not Scent lok just a little info

[Doc]

Me personally, I love my Scent-lok. I had many deer walk the same path I have, go down wind of me and not smell me, come from downwind so I know that it works, but eliminate all human odor...obviously not

Lol .... I have had the same thing happen with just my normal hunting clothes on. So anecdotal evidence really doesn't mean a whole lot. In fact that's how some of these companies get away with some of their deceptive advertising. They know that nobody can prove or disprove their claims so they just throw them out there knowing that a certain percentage of people will get sucked in by them.

Look, I don't know if the stuff works or not. Frankly, I don't even care. Personally that stuff crosses a personal technological barrier for me and I wouldn't use it if it came with an unlimited money-back guarantee. That's a personal decision or limit that I place on myself, and as far as what other people want to do, that's none of my business. What I really don't like though is companies trying to take advantage of hunters (if that's what's happening here). If somebody wants to take one of these companies to task and can prove their case, more power to them. They are probably doing a good thing. At the very least they are putting manufacturers on notice that there really is a line of honesty that should not be crossed and that deception comes with a risk. That's a good thing.

As to how much these plaintiffs are getting from all this, I don't know if they are getting anything. I can't imagine that they are going to be getting rich off it. So, without further concrete info, I am not about to question their motives.

Doc

[Jorden]

Jorden that comment/phrase.. forget the wind is from Scent Blocker not Scent lok just a little info

Ya my bad

[blacktailslayer]

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.

Link

So why did they have the court seal the scientific testing? I guess Scent Lok has something to hide. Maybe if they want people to believe them; then they should allow the public to read the scientific testing used in the courts decision.

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 ( http://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."

Edited May 30, 2010 by blacktailslayer

[blacktailslayer]

Well I just heard from someone that justia's website said Scentblocker and Scott Schultz just settled 9 lawsuits. There must be enough evidence for them to settle. Of course its all sealed from the public. They must know their product doesn't work. They just don't want us to see the real evidence. I wonder is Scent-lok will ever share the sealed evidence with the public. It is funny that they are still trying to claim their product works, but then hide all the scientific evidence and testing from the public.

[/font]