Two consumers have filed separate proposed class action lawsuits alleging that deodorants sold as “unscented” contain ingredients the plaintiffs describe as fragrance ingredients.
One complaint targets Native Unscented Deodorant and names The Procter & Gamble Company, which owns and sells the Native personal-care brand. The other names Church & Dwight Co., Inc., the company behind Arm & Hammer, and challenges Arm & Hammer Essentials Unscented Deodorant and Arm & Hammer UltraMax Unscented Antiperspirant and Deodorant.
Both complaints were filed on August 12, 2026, in federal courts in New York. They are at an early stage. The allegations have not been proven, neither court has certified a class, and there is no settlement, claim form, payment amount, or participation deadline.
Key facts
- Cases: Chiaravalloti v. The Procter & Gamble Company, No. 1:26-cv-06902, Southern District of New York; and Glickman v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., No. 2:26-cv-04936, Eastern District of New York.
- Products named: Native Unscented Deodorant; Arm & Hammer Essentials Unscented Deodorant; and Arm & Hammer UltraMax Unscented Antiperspirant and Deodorant.
- Core allegation: The plaintiffs say shoppers would understand “unscented” to mean the products do not contain fragrance ingredients, while the challenged ingredient lists allegedly include ginger root extract or ethylene brassylate.
- Proposed classes: Each plaintiff seeks to represent New York consumers who bought the challenged product or products for personal or household use during the four years before filing.
- Current status: Proposed class actions only. No class has been certified, no settlement has been reached, and consumers cannot file a claim through these lawsuits now.
What changed Two complaints filed the same day now ask different New York federal courts to decide whether the “unscented” presentation of the challenged deodorants was misleading. Filing a complaint begins a case; it does not establish that the allegations are true.
What the Native lawsuit alleges
Maria Chiaravalloti filed her complaint against The Procter & Gamble Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint identifies P&G as the company that formulates, manufactures, labels, markets, distributes, and sells Native Unscented Deodorant nationwide under the Native brand.
Native is a consumer personal-care brand that sells deodorant and other body-care products. Consumers encounter the products through Native’s website and national retailers. The specific product at issue in this lawsuit is Native Unscented Deodorant, not every Native deodorant or every product marketed by P&G.
Chiaravalloti says she bought the product at a Target store in New York in spring 2026 after seeing “unscented” on its packaging. Her complaint alleges that she understood that representation to mean the product did not contain fragrance ingredients and that she paid more than she otherwise would have paid.
The complaint focuses on Zingiber officinale, the botanical name for ginger, root extract. It alleges that the challenged product contains the extract and characterizes it as an aromatic ingredient that makes the “unscented” representation false or misleading. That characterization is the plaintiff’s allegation; the court has not decided what function the ingredient performs in the formula or how a reasonable consumer would understand the label.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law. Section 349 addresses deceptive acts or practices in business, while Section 350 addresses false advertising. The complaint seeks monetary relief and other remedies for the named plaintiff and a proposed class.
Who the Native case would cover if certified The complaint proposes a class of people in New York who bought Native Unscented Deodorant for personal or household use during the four years before the lawsuit. That is a requested class definition, not a final eligibility rule.
What the Arm & Hammer lawsuit alleges
Mark Glickman filed a separate complaint against Church & Dwight in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Church & Dwight is a consumer-products company whose brands include Arm & Hammer. The lawsuit concerns two underarm products sold under that brand: Essentials Unscented Deodorant and UltraMax Unscented Antiperspirant and Deodorant.
A deodorant is designed primarily to control odor. An antiperspirant is designed to reduce perspiration, although products may combine both functions. The distinction matters because the complaint names one deodorant and one combination antiperspirant-deodorant, but challenges the same front-label term on both.
Glickman says he bought the products in New York during the relevant period after reviewing the “unscented” labeling. His complaint alleges that the products contain ethylene brassylate, which it describes as a synthetic musk used as a fragrance in consumer goods. The plaintiff says the presence of that ingredient conflicts with the message a reasonable shopper would take from “unscented.”
Church & Dwight’s current official page for Arm & Hammer Essentials Unscented Deodorant describes it as having “no artificial fragrance” and being free of “overwhelming fragrances.” That language provides current product context, but it does not resolve the lawsuit. The legal question will depend on the challenged labels, ingredient evidence, the parties’ arguments, and how the court applies New York law.
The Arm & Hammer complaint, like the Native complaint, invokes Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law. It seeks damages and other relief for the named plaintiff and a proposed class of New York purchasers.
Who the Arm & Hammer case would cover if certified The requested class consists of New York consumers who bought the challenged Arm & Hammer products for personal or household use during the four years before filing. The court has not approved that class.
What “putative class action” means
Both lawsuits are putative class actions. “Putative” means the plaintiff is asking to proceed on behalf of a group, but the court has not yet certified that group as a class.
Class certification is a later procedural step. A judge generally evaluates whether the proposed group meets requirements such as numerosity, common questions, typicality, and adequate representation. The complaints allege that those requirements are satisfied, but those allegations are not a certification ruling.
Until a class is certified or a settlement is proposed and approved, other purchasers are not automatically parties receiving a payment or a formal right to submit a claim. Consumers do not need to submit information to Class Action Pulse or pay anyone to “join” these particular cases at this stage.
Why the meaning of “unscented” is disputed
The complaints rest on a consumer-understanding theory: that a shopper seeing “unscented” would expect the product to contain no fragrance ingredients. They allege the defendants benefited because some shoppers seek products without fragrance and may pay a premium or choose one product over another based on that representation.
The lawsuits do not establish a universal scientific or regulatory definition for every use of “unscented” in personal-care marketing. Instead, each complaint asks a court to assess specific product labels, ingredients, purchasing circumstances, and state consumer-protection claims.
Current official product pages also show why precise wording matters. Native currently markets an unscented plastic-free deodorant as “fragrance free,” while Arm & Hammer’s current Essentials page uses the narrower phrases “no artificial fragrance” and “free of overwhelming fragrances.” Those pages may change over time, and they are not substitutes for the exact packaging and evidence at issue in the complaints.
A label dispute, not a product recall These complaints allege economic harm from purportedly misleading marketing. They are not recall notices, and the filings do not create a government finding that the products are unsafe.
What the plaintiffs are asking for
Each complaint alleges that the named plaintiff would not have bought the challenged product on the same terms, or would have paid less, if the labeling had been different. That type of theory is often described as a price-premium claim: the purchaser alleges that a representation caused them to pay more than the product was worth as represented.
The plaintiffs request damages, restitution or other monetary relief, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a jury trial. Injunctive relief is a court order requiring or prohibiting future conduct. The exact relief available, if any, would depend on later rulings or a negotiated resolution.
The complaints estimate that the proposed classes are numerous, but no verified class count appears in the current public record reviewed for this article. Class Action Pulse is therefore not publishing an estimate of how many people may be covered or how much any person might recover.
Can consumers file a claim now?
No. There is no court-authorized settlement website, claim form, payment program, or claim deadline for either lawsuit.
Consumers who bought one of the named products and want to follow the litigation can keep ordinary purchase records, including receipts, order confirmations, photographs of packaging, and product labels. Keeping records does not establish membership in a future class or guarantee compensation.
People should be cautious about messages that promise immediate money or ask for payment to participate. If either case later reaches a proposed settlement, formal notice would explain the covered products, dates, locations, exclusions, benefits, and deadlines approved by the court.
No action deadline exists The current filings announce no claim deadline. The next meaningful public developments may include responses from the defendants, motions, amended complaints, class-certification proceedings, dismissal, or settlement discussions.
What happens next
The defendants will have opportunities to respond to the complaints and dispute the factual and legal claims. Early cases can change substantially: allegations may be amended, claims may be narrowed or dismissed, cases may proceed individually rather than as class actions, or the parties may reach settlements.
Because the suits are in different federal districts and concern different companies and products, they are separate cases even though the core labeling theory is similar. A ruling in one would not automatically decide the other.
Class Action Pulse will track material docket developments, including any answer, dismissal ruling, class-certification decision, or proposed settlement that creates concrete rights for purchasers.
The allegations remain unproven. Neither P&G nor Church & Dwight has been found liable in these cases, and the complaints available for this report do not include the companies’ responses. This article provides general information, not legal advice, and does not determine whether any reader could become part of a class.
Frequently asked questions
Are these Native and Arm & Hammer deodorant cases settled?
No. They are newly filed proposed class actions. No settlement has been announced or approved.
Who may be included if a class is certified?
The complaints propose New York classes covering purchasers of the named products for personal or household use during the four years before filing. A judge could approve, change, or reject those definitions.
Is there a claim form or deadline?
No. Neither case currently has a claim form, payment program, or participation deadline.
Do the lawsuits say every Native or Arm & Hammer product is affected?
No. The filings identify Native Unscented Deodorant, Arm & Hammer Essentials Unscented Deodorant, and Arm & Hammer UltraMax Unscented Antiperspirant and Deodorant.
Have the allegations been proven?
No. Complaints state the plaintiffs’ allegations. The courts have not decided liability or certified a class.