On April 9, 2025, a federal court in New York dismissed a false advertising lawsuit filed against Zenlen, Inc. (“Zenlen”), over claims about its Native deodorant.[i] The suit, brought by consumer Ashton Hernandez, challenged the brand’s assertion that its product offers “clinically proven 72-hour odor protection.”

Hernandez filed the original complaint on June 26, 2024, alleging that Zenlen violated Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law by misleading consumers. The main allegation was that the company marketed its whole-body deodorant as both “natural” and supported by clinical evidence of long-lasting odor protection, using platforms such as social media, online ads, and TV commercials. Hernandez purchased the deodorant after seeing the 72-hour odor protection claims and found it failed to deliver the promised protection.

Initially, Hernandez asserted that Zenlen had never clinically tested the product. Although the court granted Zenlen’s first motion to dismiss, it allowed Hernandez to file an amended complaint.

In her revised complaint, filed January 17, 2025, Hernandez repeated the claim that no clinical testing had occurred but also acknowledged receiving a redacted document from Zenlen’s legal team purporting to show a clinical study. She criticized the document as incomprehensible and argued that the methodology used was “absurdly flawed” and did not qualify as legitimate clinical evidence.

Zenlen responded with a renewed motion to dismiss on January 31, 2025, arguing that Hernandez failed to adequately allege materially misleading conduct pursuant to New York’s consumer protection laws.

The court agreed with Zenlen. In its decision, it pointed out a contradiction in Hernandez’s amended complaint in which she claimed no testing was conducted but simultaneously challenged the quality of an actual study produced by Zenlen. The court found even a flawed study qualifies as a test, undermining her initial assertion.

In opposing the motion to dismiss, Hernandez shifted her argument claiming that rather than proving 72-hour odor protection, Zenlen’s study only showed reduced odor compared to not using deodorant. The court rejected this new argument as improper because the plaintiff cannot revise their complaint through arguments made in a brief. The court also noted that it was not plausible for a reasonable consumer to believe that “odor protection” means complete, three-day odor elimination.

Hernandez also argued that Zenlen’s refusal to produce an unredacted version of the study suggested the evidence did not support the company’s advertising claims. The court rejected this argument finding neither state law nor federal procedure requires defendants to disprove unsupported allegations before a plaintiff presents a valid legal claim.

The court granted Zenlen’s second and final motion to dismiss the amended complaint. They found her claims to be either conclusory, self-contradictory, or improperly raised.

Takeaway

This case emphasizes the value of a strong legal defense team that can meticulously analyze the plaintiff’s pleadings, identify weaknesses and inconsistencies, and effectively argue procedural and substantive deficiencies to achieve a dismissal. Here, the defense secured dismissal by exposing contradictions in the plaintiff’s pleadings. By submitting just enough (a single redacted clinical study) to cast doubt on the “never tested” claim, the defense also avoided over-disclosure.

Keep Reading

Environmental Friendly Class Action Against Maker of Gore-Tex Based on Speculation Why I Chose to Become an Attorney Salty Situation: Class Action Lawsuit Against Salt Manufacturer Alleges Improper Levels of Heavy Metals You’re Out? Additional Litigation Uncertain After Judge Denies Certifying Class of Ex-NCAA Baseball Players The Importance of Preserving Objections: Estate of Bainlardi v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Grow Your Legal Practice with Returning Clients and Referrals Strategic Anchoring: Using Cognitive Bias to Win Negotiations Laughing Gas Is No Laughing Matter: New Lawsuit May Impose Strict Liability on Nitrous Oxide Manufacturers for Marketing Practices In Florida, What You See is What You Get Whether You Click on It or Not

More by this author

No Sweat: Strategic Defense Clears the Air in Ad Lawsuit Civil Procedure Updates to Know in New York for 2025 Staying Above Water: Mitigating Liability Under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in New Jersey Kicked Off the Team: College Football Doctor Wins Big in Wrongful Termination Case

Sources

^I Hernandez v. Zenlen, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04846,2025 WL 1070331, (S.D.N.Y. April 9, 2025)