Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Bestul: Scent Lok Found Guilty of False Advertising

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Whitetail 365
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

May 17, 2010

Bestul: Scent Lok Found Guilty of False Advertising

By Scott Bestul

 

One of the outdoor industry’s heavy hitters took a big counter-punch last Thursday. That’s when U.S District Court Judge Richard Kyle issued a “summary judgement” that found ALS Enterprises, maker of the popular carbon-based “Scent Lok” hunting clothing, liable for false or deceptive advertising. Also named in the suit were Cabela’s Wholesale, Cabela’s Inc., and Gander Mountain Company, companies that either sold Scent Lok products or were licensees who used Scent Lok patents to make and market their own clothing.

[See a story update here]
The suit, first filed nearly three years ago, was brought against Scent Lok etal. by Minnesota hunters Mike Buetow, Gary Richard Stevenson Jr., Joe Rohrbach, Jeff Brosi, and Dennis Deeb. At issue were statements and graphics found in Scent Lok ads asserting that the carbon-impregnated clothing would “eliminate” human odor and allow a hunter to hunt “scent free.” The plaintiffs also took issue with Scent Lok claims that the clothing could be “reactivated” or “regenerated” in a household dryer. The plaintiffs alleged that these ads violated Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act, The Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Though Judge Kyle sided slightly with Scent Lok on the “regeneration” issue, the rest of the news was not good for the clothing giant. “We felt the statements used by Scent Lok in their ads were clear and had only one meaning; that the product controlled all human odor, not just reduced some odor,” said Renae Steiner, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “Expert witnesses proved that the product simply cannot work as it is advertised, and the judge agreed. Obviously, we’re very pleased with this outcome.”

Though different than a jury trial, the summary judgement process opens the door to further legal woes for Scent Lok, etal. “The plaintiffs now have the right to seek complete restitution for monies they spent on Scent Lok products,” Steiner said. “Unfortunately, the judge denied our case for a class-action status—which would have allowed any Minnesota hunter to join the suit—so damages will be limited to the original plaintiffs in this state. However, plaintiffs in eight other states—Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, California, New York, Indiana, Maryland, and Michigan —have also filed cases against Scent Lok. We are scheduled to file class certification motions in those cases in July. We have been contacted by hunters in a number of other states, asking us (Steiner was joined by attorney Tom Leach in representing the Minnesota hunters) as well. We consider this case trial-ready and are prepared to proceed.”

That’s what we know so far. What does it all mean? We’ll be discussing that here in the coming weeks

Comments (63)

Top Rated
All Comments
from matouse3 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Is there a link to this info/article? I'd like to read some more about it.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

come on! No one disagrees that they help, but who really believes their absolutely effective? you still breath, have exposed skin, and have to be careful how you touch and prepare everything. It's a bs suit based on a technicality against a decent product. It's a step away from claiming that you didn't know you could be injured using your lawnmower as a trimmer.

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

They're.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from vtbluegrass wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

False advertising is an issue with products and the law is there to protect consumers. Granted anyone with half a brain knows that all human odor can't be eliminated but that add says what it says. I would also guess that this is the least harmful misadvertizing there is, right up there with the pictures of what food is "supposed" to look like at your fast food joint.

On a side note anyone ever catch that some of the hunting shows with a scentlok sponsorship still mention hunting the wind or that a big buck "winded" them. How is it they keep the sponsor ship? The commercial clearly says forget the wind, just hunt. We all know thats not true but you gotta follow the company's tag line. I mean a NASCAR driver would lose the stickers on his car in a heartbeat if he blamed penzoil for car over heating or chevy for making a crap car. (okay that last one,eehh)

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Check out these links...

http://www.trmichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScience.htm

At the end of this article take their poll and express your opinion.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_113902.asp

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Looks like 60% plus think the stuff does not work...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from babsfish4life wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

So these 5 morons spent 3 years in court, tens of thousands of dollars in legal and lawyer fees, caused all this trouble for scent-lok (meaning higher prices and lower quality product to cover their costs), all so these guys get a full refund for their camo? “The plaintiffs now have the right to seek complete restitution for monies they spent on Scent Lok products,” sounds like a refund to me. Common sense is no longer needed in the world, you don't have a case if you have a lick of common sense. People don't understand where this money comes from, OUR POCKETS!

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

I thought people wore thet camo as a Social Obligation.

Just like they buy less-than excellent rifles and shotguns, as long as they get social acceptance from their peer group.

I can't imagine them turning on an Icon like thet.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bones812 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

would this mean scent killers are full of it too.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from squirrelgirl wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

I would just like to let everyone know this is exactly like the wonderbra lawsuit. I know there's mostly guys here but years ago a few women sued the makers of the wonderbra clamining the bra um did not hold up to advertised promises. there ya go.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

This will probably lead to highly visible (non-camoed) lawyer-mandated disclaimers on exterior surfaces of all carbon-based and silver-lined clothing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from schwings wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Never bought anything scent lok because you just knew it was too good to be true. They got rich from false advertisement and defrauding hunters. Hope they have to pay it all back to the hunters and then some.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Imagine that.. OMG I'm so shocked and floored by this news of deceipt in order to make a buck off of a gimmick.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

"This will probably lead to highly visible (non-camoed) lawyer-mandated disclaimers on exterior surfaces of all carbon-based and silver-lined clothing."

Or, hopefully it will lead to manufacturers not making ridiculous and obviously false statements regarding thier products.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Thank you for an good description without personal feelings.
They are in a lot of trouble because of the claims they have made.
Restitution is still available to all Minnesots hunters who are willing to hire an attorney. They should be able to recover attorney fees from the court. The ruling has already been made.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

At what point do you say "Hey, let's sue Scent-Lok." It's sorta like suing the Pocket-Fisherman folks. The deer hunting must be pretty slow in Minnesota.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from fliphuntr14 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Its still comfortable and durable clothing i have a set of it and i still spray down heavy with the 99% effective scent killer tested by rutgers.. lol This makes me curious of how true that is. Science's words can be twisted to reflect a desired advertising effect. Scent lok used to many guarantees in there advertising. Someones bound to catch this and by someone i mean a hunter who's also a lawyer.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from happygilmore2120 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

I just don't understand how people can be so stupid. There is false advertising everywhere, so the instead of being a moron and suing for your own stupidity due some research and find out on your own. I think the option of suing should be saved for extreme times and measures, not because you made a poor purchase. I saw an ad for a tire that says it will stop 15 feet quicker on wet pavement...does that mean fifteen feet quicker than a car with no brakes? People suing is why nobody can afford anything anymore E.G. Medicine, Doctors and Insurance!!

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Here's Your Sign!

LOL

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MNhunter23 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Well said happygilmore...I use scentlok and I think it is great at reducing the amount of human body odor that is emitted, but at no point have I actually expected it to completely eliminate it. People need to use more common sense and not waste their time on frivolous lawsuits such as this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Douglas wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Guess I'll cancel my order for the scent lock bed blanket.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bioboy wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Well there's another perfect case for the issue of over sueing and wasting the time of the justice system. I hope those guys are shunned by the entire hunting community around them for making us as hunters look so stupid that we can't tell the products don't work like a miracle. I hate people like this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Scent Lok lied and now they are paying for that lie. Not sure why there is so much support for a product that has fleeced hunters. Scent Lok's marketing and law team knew darn well what they were doing and the consequences of making such exagerated claims. I commend the hunters for standing up for what is right.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Caveat emptor... A deer hunters and fishermen will buy anything if the results look rosy...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Yeah, I'm a little surprised by the number of people standing up for Scent-lok here. It seems the sentiment is "Well, they are obviously lying, so it's ok." WTF?

Most of us agree that thier claims were rather ridiculous. Is it ok then to only make product claims that are obvious falsehoods? What about ones that aren't quite as obvious? Is it cool if I manufacture a new non-toxic load that performs the same as steel but claim it outperforms tungsten, for example?

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from finnyk wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Okay, claiming to 'eliminate all human scent' was probably over the top, but I wonder if they continued to wear Scent-Lok during those three gruesome years of toiling ever so much harder in the woods because of the camo's failure to be "scent free." Did they actually have to revert to primitive Neanderthal methods of actually paying attention to what the wind was doing while they were in the woods? Will they ever get that elusive trophy whitetail that they obviously would have, but for Scent-Lok's failure to act as advertised? The real question is - What real hunter in their right freakin' mind would go to this extent to justify a bad season? If the clothes didn't work like you wanted them too, then change brands and refuse to give Scent-Lok another chance. Tune in next time for the answers to these and more smelly questions on next week's edition of "Equal Opportunity Excuses in the Whitetail Woods".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I usually start sweating while hiking up to the best hunting areas, I spray down, the wind direction changes constantly, and not making noise, or moving at the wrong time makes, or breaks the hunt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If these people were dumb enough to believe that scent can be eliminated that easily, then they should be nominated for our Natural Selection award!
LOOK! DARWIN!

Nate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from borediis21 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

people who sue for sh*ts and giggles are tearing America down and need to be kicked in the kahunas and i think those guys give sportsman's a bad name

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

The "need to be kicked in the kahunas" because they called a manufacture out on lying to potential customers and misleading ads?

I don't like frivolous lawsuits more than anybody else. I just don't understand why we should give manufacturers license to make any product claim they want when they know it to be false. These guys aren't gonna walk away from this with millions of dollars; they will likely get attorney's fees, product reimbursment, and other minor charges. Seems pretty fair to me...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dann wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

While in the service, I had to wear "carbon impregnated" clothing in the opening days of the last war. We were told it would work for about the first 8 hours after being removed from the package. I can tell you, after a few hours in that suit in 100 degree+ weather, you definitely wanted to be up wind from anyone else.

The dryer reactivation is a load of crap. Super activated charcoal can't reactivated at any temprature available at your house, without destroying the material its impregnated in.

Scent-Lok was a scam from the get go. If it really worked, our spec-ops guys would have been using it 20 years ago.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Were the ads misleading? Sure
Should people use common-sense to understand realy? Yes
Should Scent-Lok change their adds? Yes
Should Scent-Lok pay a fine? Maybe
Should every hunter who ever bought this line of Scent-Lok clothing be able to make a claim and get money from Scent-Lok? No. You bought the stuff, you live with it. This is too close to a "hot coffee" lawsuit for me. Seriously, what's the claim? "I missed a tirty-point buck because my scent-lok clothing didn't hide all my BO? Come on...man up!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

realy = reality

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dann wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

This isn't a case of a product that has exageratted claims, i.e. it works but not as well as advertised, but a blatant falsehood. The product would never have worked for the consumer. Activated charcoal has a definite shelf life after being removed from its package, thats measured in hours. I've never seen Scent-lok EVER sold in vacuum package.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RANGERMANZ20 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I'm so glad I never bought any of those type of hunting clothes, I always thought they was way over priced, the Army has used the same make up for the old M.O.P.P. suits to protect against chemical attack, and alot of Soldiers use old suits to hunt in. I have a hunting buddy that spent over $1000 on the whole SentLock set from head to toe and he still got busted even after spraying down with No-sent spray. I have just always followed the old ways, shower wash your clothes and play the wind and I still fill my tags every fall, I use a cover sent like fox pee. I have also killed alot of deer that came in down wind of me and why they didn't spook off I have no clue. So i'm glad I saved my money for better things like a new bow and treestand.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

What ever happened to "It didn't work that well so I'm not buying it anymoe?"
Why does everything seemingly have to be settled by lawsuits anymore?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Those guys fell for it, as P.T. Barnum said There's a sucker born every minute.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pa deer hunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

After reading all these comments I don't know if the stuff works or not. I bought a sentlok "full season" suit in 2006. That year a big doe stood under my tree for about 20 min. and lured the buck she was with to within bow range. he was a big 8 139in. Since then I have seen more deer than ever. Even when I thought I was winded the deer seemed to calm down as if it thought that I was further away than I really was. last year I took another nice buck. Just as I was about to shoot a small 4 pointer came up from the direction my sent was blowing he never knew I was there.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from cwhitehead wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

#1 These guys must be very gullible, I bet they have the latest in everything that come out for whitetail hunting, thus they have more $ than they do since. No matter what close you ware, if you stand up wind from an animal that god has given a nose for its defensive your going to get busted. All GOOD hunters play the wind First.
#2 IF this is the case then I want to sue M&M's for one melted in my hand last week not in my mouth. The Ignorant and the rich are the people that do all the suing, its the average, common since factory worker that just has to learn a lesson in purchasing hunting gear and move on. Even though it may take a year to save up to buy that crap. I personally shop at the cheaper stores and have never hung my success on a hunting trip on my clothes.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hank111 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Glad to finally hear people agree, that crap dont work.I take 25 - 30 clients per year. Ninety percent are obsessive-compulsive disordered about their scent loc and scent elimination spray, to the point where they are tortureing themselves, but they get winded just as often as the guys that dont.I especially hate it when they come at me with the spray before I walk them out to their hunting area. Thats where I draw the line. The deer on my place would much rather smell me as tractor exhaust and horse crap, than anything artificial.There is no shortcut to playing the wind and haveing setups that will work for the different winds and a slick way in and out.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Well said Hank111 -- There are no shortcuts.

I doubt these guys that sued bought into the 100% scent elimination claim. They sued because Scent Lok was breaking the law with their false advertisement. We as a nation of consumers need to fight back when companies break the law. It is US the consumer that has to keep them in check; lord knows the government will not. I will not turn a blind eye to any manufacturer that tries to scam its customers and neither should you.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Amflyer wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Scent lock doesn't eliminate all human scent?

Next you'll be telling me that Gillette really ISN'T the "Best a Man Can Get"

Crap, I probably don't even "Deserve a Break Today."

Well, at least my Axe spray still works.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from arky_hunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Hey yall be careful that coffee at Mcdonalds is hot too LMAO at some people

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joel Panian wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Well, Scent-Lok shouldn't have made such grand claims, but, shouldn't we all have more common sense then to believe such a statement? When we see pictures of our hunting forfathers they were wearing jeans, flannel, and wool overcoats. None of them had Scent-Lok, they had common sense and good hunting skills. We would be wise to remember this and not have so much reliance on man made promises.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from countitandone wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

There's no Santa, no Tooth Fairy and no Scent-Loc...what's next?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scent-Lok Technology wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Scent-Lok Officials Respond to Minnesota District Court Ruling

http://www.scentlok.com/scentlok-latest/scent-lok-officials-respond-to-m...

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.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from John Hawg wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Frankly I hate to see lawsuits like this,because every deer hunter knows you CANNOT eliminate 100% of human scent..ever. The advertizing was false? Ok, slap their wrist and embarass them in the marketplace, but no hunter should be getting a check from the company for what should be the obvious. Anyway the lawyers end up with most of it. Remember if you buy coffee from McDonalds don't spill it in your lap....its HOT....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hank111 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I guess they need to stick to the word reduce, and stop the elimination BS.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Plotner wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

ouch!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from neubauer6 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Who would waste their money on this stuff anyway? If you want an edge, scout, practice, place stands properly, and play the wind. If I claimed I had invented heat sensing glasses that would show you where the deer were would you buy those too? Come on, what happened to the sport of hunting?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pa deer hunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

As I said in a eariler comment I have been using scent-lok since 2006. They never said they elimated 100% of human odor.(I still have the tags from the jacket) As someone who hunted deer for over 35 years I never expected nor would I pretend to believe it could. Still you could argue that the phrase "odor eliminating" is misleading. I would like to say that I agree with scent-lok the stuff does work. How well it works however is debatable and depends on a great many factors. Hunters who do not have time to scout,and have precious few days to hunt,and even fewer places to hunt may find it usefull as I have.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jimmy Vickers wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I guess I am as guilty as many many other hunters. When it comes to deer hunting I have probably bought every gimmick out there in hope that it might give me an edge, including scent loc. My closet full of junk that doesn't improve my deer hunting just has one more item. No big deal

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jloutdoors wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Ok, maybe they didn't articulate there product very well but still, does it really require a lawsuit for not telling the truth. Environmentalist groups look for lawsuits all the time, this suit just opens another door for them to come in and take all the money that they can. Am i going to sue a guide that said that i would have a chance at a elk, no.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from countitandone wrote 3 years 47 weeks ago

This is great stuff...now we've got unscrupulous attorneys filing class certification motions against unscrupulous clothing merchants. And these manufactures are "forcing us hunters" to buy a product which will be a "sure bet" when it comes to total camouflage from the keen sensory of whitetail.

I suppose the Human Energy Concealment System (HECS)product manufactures and merchants, with their "mask the heart beat" claim, will be the next fodder for the court system and their endless flow of ambulance chasers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from scott powers wrote 3 years 47 weeks ago

WOW WHAT HELL!!i hopev that i never go through something like that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rcoleman wrote 3 years 46 weeks ago

60% of the time, it works everytime.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetail swamp wrote 3 years 43 weeks ago

It looks like ScentBlocker (robinson) has won. Products work.

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.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shmit Lorrie wrote 3 years 35 weeks ago

It's knuckle-nobs all around. Sent Lok shouldn't have claimed to have a perfect product (it's incredibly good, but not perfect), nor should have anyone believed them. Sad day for outdoorsmen.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tmichels wrote 3 years 34 weeks ago

If you don't think Greg Sessleman knew who started it all, and who he blames, you have not read one of the latest correspondences between he and I, in which Greg Sesselman, owner of Scent Lok, forgives me, because he holds me responsible, for what has happened to Scent Lok. The e-mail can be found on my website at www.TRMichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScienceIntro.htm

After the court ruling on Scent Lok, which found them guilty of Fraud (ulent) advertising, and after the Patent Office rescinding all but one of their 94 Patent Claims, I had a couple of people call me "the writer who took on Scent Lok, and brought them down", "by telling hunters the truth." I don't know if I deserve that title, but I did kind of start the whole thing.

Basically I took on Scent Lok, Cabela's, Gander Mountain, Browning and Robinson Outdoors/Scent Blocker, a multi-million dollar group of odor control clothing producers, and in the end justice was served.

Ask yourself, how one small, insignificant outdoor writer, took on this conglomeration, and accomplished anything?

How did I it happen? Sure the MN hunters started the lawsuit, but they would not have - if I had not been exposing Scent Lok for 3 years on the talk forums, and providing information to lawyers and urging them to find a way to sue Scent Lok.

And had I not kept harassing the Patent and Trademark Office about the fact that odor control clothing had been Patented before, which made the Scent Lok Patent Claims invalid, the Patent Office would not have rescinded their patent claims.

I did have help, but ask yourself who? Who stood to gain? Not me...

It was because God was instrumental in the whole thing. I was just a willing tool.

Why don't we all tell the truth?

Why not talk about the ramifications of Scent Lok losing 93 of their 94 patent claims, and how that will allow other manufacturers to produce and market new and better odor control clothing. I know there is at least one manufacturer contemplating coming out with some very innovative odor control (not odor eliminating) technology.

May God bless you and yours,

T.R.Michels

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tmichels wrote 3 years 34 weeks ago

To corrrect anothter post, Scent Lok did state in it's advertisng that it would eliminate 100% of your odor, 100% of the time.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 3 years 34 weeks ago

tmichels-
I often wondered if Scent Lok did make that claim, "eliminate 100% of your odor, 100% of the time" and found an old magazine that had that very claim.
Thanks for your post!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetail swamp wrote 3 years 33 weeks ago

Actually Scent Blocker was not found guilty. The were proven to work as claimed and even better than other scent control products by the federal courts.

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

http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/NEWS/Robinson_Outdoors_Court_Fi...

http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/NEWS/ScentBlocker_Products_Decl...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from md1865 wrote 3 years 24 weeks ago

Nothing is 100% and there are no free lunches. It works well. I have had deer walk 10 feet from me and not know i was there sitting on the ground. On Cabelas the wordign is " Odor-adsorbing Scent-Lok lining", "Scent-adsorbing carbon". So if before it was 100%, they have re-worded go forward.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from jcarlin wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

come on! No one disagrees that they help, but who really believes their absolutely effective? you still breath, have exposed skin, and have to be careful how you touch and prepare everything. It's a bs suit based on a technicality against a decent product. It's a step away from claiming that you didn't know you could be injured using your lawnmower as a trimmer.

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from squirrelgirl wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

I would just like to let everyone know this is exactly like the wonderbra lawsuit. I know there's mostly guys here but years ago a few women sued the makers of the wonderbra clamining the bra um did not hold up to advertised promises. there ya go.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from babsfish4life wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

So these 5 morons spent 3 years in court, tens of thousands of dollars in legal and lawyer fees, caused all this trouble for scent-lok (meaning higher prices and lower quality product to cover their costs), all so these guys get a full refund for their camo? “The plaintiffs now have the right to seek complete restitution for monies they spent on Scent Lok products,” sounds like a refund to me. Common sense is no longer needed in the world, you don't have a case if you have a lick of common sense. People don't understand where this money comes from, OUR POCKETS!

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from vtbluegrass wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

False advertising is an issue with products and the law is there to protect consumers. Granted anyone with half a brain knows that all human odor can't be eliminated but that add says what it says. I would also guess that this is the least harmful misadvertizing there is, right up there with the pictures of what food is "supposed" to look like at your fast food joint.

On a side note anyone ever catch that some of the hunting shows with a scentlok sponsorship still mention hunting the wind or that a big buck "winded" them. How is it they keep the sponsor ship? The commercial clearly says forget the wind, just hunt. We all know thats not true but you gotta follow the company's tag line. I mean a NASCAR driver would lose the stickers on his car in a heartbeat if he blamed penzoil for car over heating or chevy for making a crap car. (okay that last one,eehh)

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from happygilmore2120 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

I just don't understand how people can be so stupid. There is false advertising everywhere, so the instead of being a moron and suing for your own stupidity due some research and find out on your own. I think the option of suing should be saved for extreme times and measures, not because you made a poor purchase. I saw an ad for a tire that says it will stop 15 feet quicker on wet pavement...does that mean fifteen feet quicker than a car with no brakes? People suing is why nobody can afford anything anymore E.G. Medicine, Doctors and Insurance!!

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Yeah, I'm a little surprised by the number of people standing up for Scent-lok here. It seems the sentiment is "Well, they are obviously lying, so it's ok." WTF?

Most of us agree that thier claims were rather ridiculous. Is it ok then to only make product claims that are obvious falsehoods? What about ones that aren't quite as obvious? Is it cool if I manufacture a new non-toxic load that performs the same as steel but claim it outperforms tungsten, for example?

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from matouse3 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Is there a link to this info/article? I'd like to read some more about it.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from blackdawgz wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

I thought people wore thet camo as a Social Obligation.

Just like they buy less-than excellent rifles and shotguns, as long as they get social acceptance from their peer group.

I can't imagine them turning on an Icon like thet.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bones812 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

would this mean scent killers are full of it too.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from schwings wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Never bought anything scent lok because you just knew it was too good to be true. They got rich from false advertisement and defrauding hunters. Hope they have to pay it all back to the hunters and then some.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

"This will probably lead to highly visible (non-camoed) lawyer-mandated disclaimers on exterior surfaces of all carbon-based and silver-lined clothing."

Or, hopefully it will lead to manufacturers not making ridiculous and obviously false statements regarding thier products.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Here's Your Sign!

LOL

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

The "need to be kicked in the kahunas" because they called a manufacture out on lying to potential customers and misleading ads?

I don't like frivolous lawsuits more than anybody else. I just don't understand why we should give manufacturers license to make any product claim they want when they know it to be false. These guys aren't gonna walk away from this with millions of dollars; they will likely get attorney's fees, product reimbursment, and other minor charges. Seems pretty fair to me...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scent-Lok Technology wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Scent-Lok Officials Respond to Minnesota District Court Ruling

http://www.scentlok.com/scentlok-latest/scent-lok-officials-respond-to-m...

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.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Looks like 60% plus think the stuff does not work...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MLH wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

This will probably lead to highly visible (non-camoed) lawyer-mandated disclaimers on exterior surfaces of all carbon-based and silver-lined clothing.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Imagine that.. OMG I'm so shocked and floored by this news of deceipt in order to make a buck off of a gimmick.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Thank you for an good description without personal feelings.
They are in a lot of trouble because of the claims they have made.
Restitution is still available to all Minnesots hunters who are willing to hire an attorney. They should be able to recover attorney fees from the court. The ruling has already been made.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

At what point do you say "Hey, let's sue Scent-Lok." It's sorta like suing the Pocket-Fisherman folks. The deer hunting must be pretty slow in Minnesota.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Scent Lok lied and now they are paying for that lie. Not sure why there is so much support for a product that has fleeced hunters. Scent Lok's marketing and law team knew darn well what they were doing and the consequences of making such exagerated claims. I commend the hunters for standing up for what is right.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from borediis21 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

people who sue for sh*ts and giggles are tearing America down and need to be kicked in the kahunas and i think those guys give sportsman's a bad name

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dann wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

While in the service, I had to wear "carbon impregnated" clothing in the opening days of the last war. We were told it would work for about the first 8 hours after being removed from the package. I can tell you, after a few hours in that suit in 100 degree+ weather, you definitely wanted to be up wind from anyone else.

The dryer reactivation is a load of crap. Super activated charcoal can't reactivated at any temprature available at your house, without destroying the material its impregnated in.

Scent-Lok was a scam from the get go. If it really worked, our spec-ops guys would have been using it 20 years ago.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Were the ads misleading? Sure
Should people use common-sense to understand realy? Yes
Should Scent-Lok change their adds? Yes
Should Scent-Lok pay a fine? Maybe
Should every hunter who ever bought this line of Scent-Lok clothing be able to make a claim and get money from Scent-Lok? No. You bought the stuff, you live with it. This is too close to a "hot coffee" lawsuit for me. Seriously, what's the claim? "I missed a tirty-point buck because my scent-lok clothing didn't hide all my BO? Come on...man up!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RANGERMANZ20 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I'm so glad I never bought any of those type of hunting clothes, I always thought they was way over priced, the Army has used the same make up for the old M.O.P.P. suits to protect against chemical attack, and alot of Soldiers use old suits to hunt in. I have a hunting buddy that spent over $1000 on the whole SentLock set from head to toe and he still got busted even after spraying down with No-sent spray. I have just always followed the old ways, shower wash your clothes and play the wind and I still fill my tags every fall, I use a cover sent like fox pee. I have also killed alot of deer that came in down wind of me and why they didn't spook off I have no clue. So i'm glad I saved my money for better things like a new bow and treestand.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Check out these links...

http://www.trmichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScience.htm

At the end of this article take their poll and express your opinion.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_113902.asp

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fliphuntr14 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Its still comfortable and durable clothing i have a set of it and i still spray down heavy with the 99% effective scent killer tested by rutgers.. lol This makes me curious of how true that is. Science's words can be twisted to reflect a desired advertising effect. Scent lok used to many guarantees in there advertising. Someones bound to catch this and by someone i mean a hunter who's also a lawyer.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MNhunter23 wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

Well said happygilmore...I use scentlok and I think it is great at reducing the amount of human body odor that is emitted, but at no point have I actually expected it to completely eliminate it. People need to use more common sense and not waste their time on frivolous lawsuits such as this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Douglas wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Guess I'll cancel my order for the scent lock bed blanket.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bioboy wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Well there's another perfect case for the issue of over sueing and wasting the time of the justice system. I hope those guys are shunned by the entire hunting community around them for making us as hunters look so stupid that we can't tell the products don't work like a miracle. I hate people like this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Caveat emptor... A deer hunters and fishermen will buy anything if the results look rosy...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I usually start sweating while hiking up to the best hunting areas, I spray down, the wind direction changes constantly, and not making noise, or moving at the wrong time makes, or breaks the hunt.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If these people were dumb enough to believe that scent can be eliminated that easily, then they should be nominated for our Natural Selection award!
LOOK! DARWIN!

Nate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

realy = reality

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dann wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

This isn't a case of a product that has exageratted claims, i.e. it works but not as well as advertised, but a blatant falsehood. The product would never have worked for the consumer. Activated charcoal has a definite shelf life after being removed from its package, thats measured in hours. I've never seen Scent-lok EVER sold in vacuum package.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

What ever happened to "It didn't work that well so I'm not buying it anymoe?"
Why does everything seemingly have to be settled by lawsuits anymore?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pa deer hunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

After reading all these comments I don't know if the stuff works or not. I bought a sentlok "full season" suit in 2006. That year a big doe stood under my tree for about 20 min. and lured the buck she was with to within bow range. he was a big 8 139in. Since then I have seen more deer than ever. Even when I thought I was winded the deer seemed to calm down as if it thought that I was further away than I really was. last year I took another nice buck. Just as I was about to shoot a small 4 pointer came up from the direction my sent was blowing he never knew I was there.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Well said Hank111 -- There are no shortcuts.

I doubt these guys that sued bought into the 100% scent elimination claim. They sued because Scent Lok was breaking the law with their false advertisement. We as a nation of consumers need to fight back when companies break the law. It is US the consumer that has to keep them in check; lord knows the government will not. I will not turn a blind eye to any manufacturer that tries to scam its customers and neither should you.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Amflyer wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Scent lock doesn't eliminate all human scent?

Next you'll be telling me that Gillette really ISN'T the "Best a Man Can Get"

Crap, I probably don't even "Deserve a Break Today."

Well, at least my Axe spray still works.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from John Hawg wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Frankly I hate to see lawsuits like this,because every deer hunter knows you CANNOT eliminate 100% of human scent..ever. The advertizing was false? Ok, slap their wrist and embarass them in the marketplace, but no hunter should be getting a check from the company for what should be the obvious. Anyway the lawyers end up with most of it. Remember if you buy coffee from McDonalds don't spill it in your lap....its HOT....

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from neubauer6 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Who would waste their money on this stuff anyway? If you want an edge, scout, practice, place stands properly, and play the wind. If I claimed I had invented heat sensing glasses that would show you where the deer were would you buy those too? Come on, what happened to the sport of hunting?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pa deer hunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

As I said in a eariler comment I have been using scent-lok since 2006. They never said they elimated 100% of human odor.(I still have the tags from the jacket) As someone who hunted deer for over 35 years I never expected nor would I pretend to believe it could. Still you could argue that the phrase "odor eliminating" is misleading. I would like to say that I agree with scent-lok the stuff does work. How well it works however is debatable and depends on a great many factors. Hunters who do not have time to scout,and have precious few days to hunt,and even fewer places to hunt may find it usefull as I have.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jloutdoors wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Ok, maybe they didn't articulate there product very well but still, does it really require a lawsuit for not telling the truth. Environmentalist groups look for lawsuits all the time, this suit just opens another door for them to come in and take all the money that they can. Am i going to sue a guide that said that i would have a chance at a elk, no.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from scott powers wrote 3 years 47 weeks ago

WOW WHAT HELL!!i hopev that i never go through something like that.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tmichels wrote 3 years 34 weeks ago

If you don't think Greg Sessleman knew who started it all, and who he blames, you have not read one of the latest correspondences between he and I, in which Greg Sesselman, owner of Scent Lok, forgives me, because he holds me responsible, for what has happened to Scent Lok. The e-mail can be found on my website at www.TRMichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScienceIntro.htm

After the court ruling on Scent Lok, which found them guilty of Fraud (ulent) advertising, and after the Patent Office rescinding all but one of their 94 Patent Claims, I had a couple of people call me "the writer who took on Scent Lok, and brought them down", "by telling hunters the truth." I don't know if I deserve that title, but I did kind of start the whole thing.

Basically I took on Scent Lok, Cabela's, Gander Mountain, Browning and Robinson Outdoors/Scent Blocker, a multi-million dollar group of odor control clothing producers, and in the end justice was served.

Ask yourself, how one small, insignificant outdoor writer, took on this conglomeration, and accomplished anything?

How did I it happen? Sure the MN hunters started the lawsuit, but they would not have - if I had not been exposing Scent Lok for 3 years on the talk forums, and providing information to lawyers and urging them to find a way to sue Scent Lok.

And had I not kept harassing the Patent and Trademark Office about the fact that odor control clothing had been Patented before, which made the Scent Lok Patent Claims invalid, the Patent Office would not have rescinded their patent claims.

I did have help, but ask yourself who? Who stood to gain? Not me...

It was because God was instrumental in the whole thing. I was just a willing tool.

Why don't we all tell the truth?

Why not talk about the ramifications of Scent Lok losing 93 of their 94 patent claims, and how that will allow other manufacturers to produce and market new and better odor control clothing. I know there is at least one manufacturer contemplating coming out with some very innovative odor control (not odor eliminating) technology.

May God bless you and yours,

T.R.Michels

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 3 years 49 weeks ago

They're.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from finnyk wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Okay, claiming to 'eliminate all human scent' was probably over the top, but I wonder if they continued to wear Scent-Lok during those three gruesome years of toiling ever so much harder in the woods because of the camo's failure to be "scent free." Did they actually have to revert to primitive Neanderthal methods of actually paying attention to what the wind was doing while they were in the woods? Will they ever get that elusive trophy whitetail that they obviously would have, but for Scent-Lok's failure to act as advertised? The real question is - What real hunter in their right freakin' mind would go to this extent to justify a bad season? If the clothes didn't work like you wanted them too, then change brands and refuse to give Scent-Lok another chance. Tune in next time for the answers to these and more smelly questions on next week's edition of "Equal Opportunity Excuses in the Whitetail Woods".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Those guys fell for it, as P.T. Barnum said There's a sucker born every minute.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from cwhitehead wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

#1 These guys must be very gullible, I bet they have the latest in everything that come out for whitetail hunting, thus they have more $ than they do since. No matter what close you ware, if you stand up wind from an animal that god has given a nose for its defensive your going to get busted. All GOOD hunters play the wind First.
#2 IF this is the case then I want to sue M&M's for one melted in my hand last week not in my mouth. The Ignorant and the rich are the people that do all the suing, its the average, common since factory worker that just has to learn a lesson in purchasing hunting gear and move on. Even though it may take a year to save up to buy that crap. I personally shop at the cheaper stores and have never hung my success on a hunting trip on my clothes.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hank111 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Glad to finally hear people agree, that crap dont work.I take 25 - 30 clients per year. Ninety percent are obsessive-compulsive disordered about their scent loc and scent elimination spray, to the point where they are tortureing themselves, but they get winded just as often as the guys that dont.I especially hate it when they come at me with the spray before I walk them out to their hunting area. Thats where I draw the line. The deer on my place would much rather smell me as tractor exhaust and horse crap, than anything artificial.There is no shortcut to playing the wind and haveing setups that will work for the different winds and a slick way in and out.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from arky_hunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Hey yall be careful that coffee at Mcdonalds is hot too LMAO at some people

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joel Panian wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Well, Scent-Lok shouldn't have made such grand claims, but, shouldn't we all have more common sense then to believe such a statement? When we see pictures of our hunting forfathers they were wearing jeans, flannel, and wool overcoats. None of them had Scent-Lok, they had common sense and good hunting skills. We would be wise to remember this and not have so much reliance on man made promises.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from countitandone wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

There's no Santa, no Tooth Fairy and no Scent-Loc...what's next?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Plotner wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

ouch!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jimmy Vickers wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I guess I am as guilty as many many other hunters. When it comes to deer hunting I have probably bought every gimmick out there in hope that it might give me an edge, including scent loc. My closet full of junk that doesn't improve my deer hunting just has one more item. No big deal

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from countitandone wrote 3 years 47 weeks ago

This is great stuff...now we've got unscrupulous attorneys filing class certification motions against unscrupulous clothing merchants. And these manufactures are "forcing us hunters" to buy a product which will be a "sure bet" when it comes to total camouflage from the keen sensory of whitetail.

I suppose the Human Energy Concealment System (HECS)product manufactures and merchants, with their "mask the heart beat" claim, will be the next fodder for the court system and their endless flow of ambulance chasers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rcoleman wrote 3 years 46 weeks ago

60% of the time, it works everytime.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetail swamp wrote 3 years 43 weeks ago

It looks like ScentBlocker (robinson) has won. Products work.

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.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shmit Lorrie wrote 3 years 35 weeks ago

It's knuckle-nobs all around. Sent Lok shouldn't have claimed to have a perfect product (it's incredibly good, but not perfect), nor should have anyone believed them. Sad day for outdoorsmen.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tmichels wrote 3 years 34 weeks ago

To corrrect anothter post, Scent Lok did state in it's advertisng that it would eliminate 100% of your odor, 100% of the time.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 3 years 34 weeks ago

tmichels-
I often wondered if Scent Lok did make that claim, "eliminate 100% of your odor, 100% of the time" and found an old magazine that had that very claim.
Thanks for your post!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from whitetail swamp wrote 3 years 33 weeks ago

Actually Scent Blocker was not found guilty. The were proven to work as claimed and even better than other scent control products by the federal courts.

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

http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/NEWS/Robinson_Outdoors_Court_Fi...

http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/NEWS/ScentBlocker_Products_Decl...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from md1865 wrote 3 years 24 weeks ago

Nothing is 100% and there are no free lunches. It works well. I have had deer walk 10 feet from me and not know i was there sitting on the ground. On Cabelas the wordign is " Odor-adsorbing Scent-Lok lining", "Scent-adsorbing carbon". So if before it was 100%, they have re-worded go forward.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hank111 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I guess they need to stick to the word reduce, and stop the elimination BS.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment