Unscented Deodorant Class Action Lawsuit Alleges False Advertising

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A woman has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that “unscented” antiperspirants sold by various manufacturers give off odors, contrary to the packages’ representations.

Plaintiff Melissa Fogarty alleges that she bought various unscented options by personal preference. Since she bought the products online, she was unable to detect any odors, but even if she was in a store, the class action lawsuit notes that the packaging for unscented deodorants makes it difficult to notice. Therefore, “it was not possible for Plaintiff and the Class to discern that the products were not ‘unscented’ until after the products were purchased,” the unscented deodorant class action lawsuit alleges.

Named defendants include Church & Dwight Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., The Dial Corporation, Henkel Corporation and Revlon Inc., which sell products under the Arm & Hammer, Secret, Dry Idea, Ban, Mitchum, and other brand names. While the scents noticeable to various consumers may differ, the unscented deodorant class action lawsuit notes that several ingredients offer known odor profiles for their usage in other products.

For example, Fogarty alleges that “rather than being ‘unscented’, Arm & Hammer has an … unmistakable citrus scent.” According to the unscented deodorant class action lawsuit, the ingredients that cause the scent include orange peel, chamomile flower, coriander fruit and geranium fruit oils. Similarly, the Arm & Hammer UltraMax “clearly states on its … label that it is ‘unscented’ without any qualification” but it actually contains ethylene brassylate which is allegedly referred to as “Musk T” for its sweet and clean smell. Fogarty alleges the companies’ use of the term “unscented” is false, deceptive and misleading.

Since all of the unscented deodorant products are sealed to maximize shelf life, any consumer would have difficulty determining whether or not the Secret, Mitchum and other products actually lived up to their representations. They also contain ethylene brassylate and other chemicals that can emanate odors, according to the unscented deodorant class action lawsuit. In fact, one includes on its ingredient label a “fragrance masking agent.”

Instead, the unscented deodorant class action lawsuit filed by Fogarty alleges that the consumers relied on the labeling, and as a result of the chemical composition, were misled, which “constitutes a violation of the New ]ersey Consumer Fraud Act, as well as the consumer fraud laws of other states.”

Fogarty seeks to represent a putative Class of all consumers who bought the unscented deodorant from Arm & Hammer, Mitchum, Secret, Dry Idea and Ban product lines, which could at least include thousands of potential Class members who purchased them. While the current claims rely on New Jersey civil statutes, ones from other states may be included if other plaintiffs come forward.

Fogarty is represented by Mark L. Rhoades of Rhoades LLC.

The Unscented Deodorant Class Action Lawsuit is Melissa Fogarty v. Church & Dwight Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-07086, in the U.S District Court for the district of New Jersey.