Zenlen, Inc. sells a variety of Native brand personal care products, such as shampoo, body wash, and deodorant.  A consumer sued the company, alleging that its advertising for its Whole Body Deodorant misrepresented that the product provides “clinically proven 72-hour odor protection.”  A federal court in New York recently dismissed the case.  Here's why. 

Was there clinical testing? 

The plaintiff alleged that the “clinically proven” claim was false, because the company had never clinically tested the product.  It came out during the briefing for the motion to dismiss, however, that Zenlen had previously provided the plaintiff with some evidence that it had, in fact, conducted clinical testing of the product.  

The plaintiff argued that, whatever the plaintiff had provided was not relevant, because the documentation provided by the plaintiff was “incomprehensible and in no way constitutes clinical proof” and the testing methodology was “absurdly flawed.”  The court found, however, that because the company had provided some evidence of clinical testing, there was no basis for the plaintiff's argument that Zenlen had “never” tested its product.  The court wrote, “A test, even if flawed, is still a test.”  

Importantly, the court isn't saying here that just any test can serve as substantiation for a “clinically tested” claim.  Rather, the court's holding is very limited, only finding that there's no basis for saying that no testing was conducted when the facts show otherwise.  

What does “protection” mean? 

Apparently, when the plaintiff realized that its first argument was in trouble, the plaintiff switched gears, arguing that the “72-hour odor protection” claim is misleading, because Zenlen's clinical testing does not show that the deodorant eliminates odor, but only reduces it.  The court didn't think, however, that it was plausible that reasonable consumers would interpret the odor protection claim in that manner.  

Hernandez v. Zenlen, 2025 WL 1070331 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).