Case Name

Brigette Lowe v. Sodalis USA, LLC

Case No.

3:26-cv-06962

Jurisdiction

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed On

July 8, 2026

Class Definition

This putative class action is brought on behalf of all persons in the United States, including a California subclass, who purchased Sure-branded “Unscented” Original Solid, Invisible Solid, or Aerosol antiperspirant and deodorant products for personal or household use during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint through the date of class notice.

Summary

According to the complaint, Sodalis USA, LLC falsely markets Sure-branded antiperspirant and deodorant products as “Unscented” even though they contain added fragrance ingredients. The lawsuit alleges that the “Unscented” statement on the front label leads reasonable consumers to believe the products are free of fragrance, a key feature for individuals with skin sensitivities, allergies, respiratory issues, or workplace fragrance restrictions.

Instead, the products allegedly contain ingredients such as “Fragrance,” Pentadecalactone, and Ethylene Brassylate, which the complaint characterizes as fragrance chemicals used to impart scent. Plaintiff Brigette Lowe claims that she and other consumers paid a price premium for products they believed to be truly unscented but did not receive what they were promised.

The complaint seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief, including changes to Sodalis’s labeling and marketing practices.

Allegations

The lawsuit alleges that Sodalis manufactures and sells Sure-branded “Unscented” antiperspirant and deodorant products in three forms: Original Solid, Invisible Solid, and Aerosol. According to the complaint, each of these products prominently displays the word “Unscented” on the front label, which is alleged to communicate to reasonable consumers that the products do not contain fragrance ingredients and will not impart a scent.

The complaint asserts that this representation is especially important to consumers who actively seek out unscented or fragrance-free personal care products for reasons related to health, ingredient safety, and skin sensitivity.

Products and Alleged Fragrance Ingredients

• Invisible Solid: lists “Fragrance” among its inactive ingredients
• Original Solid: contains Pentadecalactone
• Aerosol: contains Ethylene Brassylate

The complaint contends that consumer demand for unscented skincare and hygiene products has increased, and that many consumers are willing to pay more for items marketed as unscented. According to the lawsuit, Sodalis is aware of this demand and capitalizes on it by positioning the Sure products as “Unscented” while formulating them with ingredients that function as fragrances.

According to the complaint, publicly available descriptions identify Pentadecalactone and Ethylene Brassylate as chemicals used in the fragrance industry to provide musk-like, powdery, floral, and sweet scents. The lawsuit alleges that these ingredients are therefore properly characterized as fragrance components and contradict the “Unscented” claim on the products’ front labels.

The complaint further alleges that ordinary consumers do not recognize names like Pentadecalactone and Ethylene Brassylate as fragrances and reasonably rely on the clear “Unscented” statement instead of carefully reviewing lengthy ingredient lists filled with unfamiliar chemical terms.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff Brigette Lowe, a California resident, alleges that she purchased the Sure “Unscented” Original Solid deodorant multiple times over several years from retailers such as Walmart in Antioch, California. Lowe specifically wanted a deodorant free from fragrance, saw and relied on the “Unscented” representation on the front label, and did not see or understand the presence of Pentadecalactone in the ingredient list.

She allegedly understood “Unscented” to mean that the product did not contain fragrance ingredients and asserts that she would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less for it, had she known it contained a fragrance chemical.

The lawsuit contends that the challenged “Unscented” labeling allowed Sodalis to charge a price premium for the products and to gain increased market share among consumers seeking unscented deodorants. According to the complaint, plaintiff and other putative class members suffered economic injury because the products were worth less than what they paid and did not conform to the “Unscented” promise. The complaint alleges that class members lost money as a result of Sodalis’s deceptive labeling, and that Lowe still desires to purchase truly unscented deodorant products but cannot rely on Sodalis’s representations without court-ordered changes.