Key Takeaways:
- A plaintiffs’ firm is filing class actions nationwide claiming that ambient scenting denies chemically sensitive guests equal access under the ADA and state law.
- The complaints seek brand-wide fragrance bans, removal of scent systems and attorneys’ fees.
- Hotels, restaurants, and transit operators that use scent should review their programs now and have a response plan ready.
For decades, ADA Title III litigation against hotels, restaurants and transit operators focused on architectural construction-related barriers you could easily measure: ramp slopes, door widths, restroom clearances, parking stalls and accessible paths of travel. A new and fast-growing category of claims targets something you can’t see at all: the signature scent in a hotel lobby, a restaurant dining room, or a train station.
Scenting has become a hallmark of luxury hospitality. Hotels are investing heavily in signature fragrances to attract and keep guests. Professional scent-marketing companies now supply custom fragrances to hotel brands and properties across the country. The plaintiffs’ bar has noticed. Here is what businesses need to know, and what to do now.
A National Campaign Led by One Firm
The current wave started in earnest in May and June 2026. That’s when the Oakland-based firm Cole & Van Note, founded by Scott Edward Cole, Esq., a notable class action attorney, filed a series of class actions over hotel fragrances on behalf of guests with fragrance sensitivities. The firm announced its first filing as “the first of its kind” and said more cases would follow. It called the case “a warning to all businesses pushing synthetic fragrance on their customers and employees.” Indeed, Scott was true to his word because more fragrance sensitivity class actions have been filed.
The firm’s website describes the effort as an “anti-fragrance litigation movement.” It says hotels are at the “[t]op of our list,” but that “ALL types of businesses are being addressed.” Major hotel chains have been named in the first round. The firm has also filed against luxury hospitality and restaurant brands, and it has moved beyond hotels into passenger rail.
The cases have been filed in federal courts in California and Florida, and the firm has continued to file against a broad range of hospitality and retail defendants. In the Florida case, local Florida attorneys appear alongside the lead firm. That arrangement lets the campaign spread into new jurisdictions quickly. The firm’s founder has said publicly that he expects more filings outside California in the coming months. After a recent visit to Las Vegas, he remarked that “[a]t least 95% of the places that I visited had some kind of fragrance.”
Many luxury operators use the same preeminent scent-marketing vendors. That means one vendor’s client list can work as a ready-made target list. Hotels, restaurants, airports, train stations, rail operators, casinos, spas, and flagship retailers that use ambient scenting should assume they are on plaintiffs’ radar. According to the leading fragrance distributor, in more than 20 years of business, these are the first such claims they have experienced.
What the Complaints Demand
The complaints follow a familiar template. They describe synthetic fragrance products, scent-dispersion machines, HVAC-integrated systems, diffusers and plug-ins. They cite statistics on asthma, chemical sensitivity and autism spectrum disorders. They seek nationwide classes of “[a]ll chemically sensitive (disabled) persons residing within the United States.”
The relief they request is aggressive consisting of:
- brand-wide injunctions banning synthetic fragrance at every U.S. location and requiring scent systems to be decommissioned,
- decommissioning of scent systems,
- corrective advertising,
- an accounting and constructive trust, and
- attorneys’ fees.
Some complaints also reserve the right to add any party that controls “the environmental conditions” of a defendant’s locations. That language could reach scent vendors, property owners, and management companies.
In California, the complaints also invoke the Unruh Civil Rights Act alongside the ADA. That matters. A private ADA Title III claim allows only injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees, but Unruh provides statutory damages for each violation, which can multiply exposure across a class of guests.
How the Cases Are Unfolding, and What They Cost
Even when these cases go away, they do not necessarily stay away. Some of the early federal filings have been dropped, while others remain in their early stages. The firm has said that some dropped federal cases are being refiled in state court. A business that gets one case dismissed may simply face the same claims again somewhere else.
Even the earliest phases take time and money. In the passenger rail case, the first several months alone included all the following:
- pro hac vice applications,
- pretrial and discovery-procedure orders,
- referral to a magistrate judge,
- extensions of the response deadline,
- disputes over scheduling conferences, and
- a new complaint that changed which defendants were in the case.
If a case gets past the pleadings, a defendant faces costly fights over toxicology and indoor-air-quality experts, property-by-property inspections and class certification. It also faces reputational harm from public allegations that its premises are “toxic.” The complaints already invoke formaldehyde, phthalates and California’s Proposition 65. Industry observers advise businesses to check whether their insurance would even cover defense costs for claims like these.
Stay Ahead of the Next Complaint
Businesses that are growing and building new hotels, restaurants, stations, on trains and in terminals should treat fragrance as a compliance issue, not just a branding decision. Before a claim arrives, we recommend these steps:
- Inventory your scent programs and vendor contracts, including the indemnity and insurance terms.
- Adopt a clear, guest-facing fragrance statement that invites guests to raise concerns at any time and describes a case-by-case accommodation process.
- Train front-line staff to recognize fragrance-related accommodation requests and escalate them to a designated contact who knows the scent program and the steps available to address a guest’s concerns.
- Review your marketing language about air quality and the guest environment.
- Build scent design into pre-opening accessibility review for new properties, stations and routes.
- Put an early-response plan in place before a demand letter arrives.
If a demand letter or complaint arrives:
- Take a deep breath, take it seriously, and do not ignore it.
- Preserve all records about your scent program from its inception, including products, devices, locations and vendor communications.
- Notify your insurer and your scent vendor promptly.
- Call experienced ADA defense counsel before responding to plaintiffs’ counsel.
This article was orginally posted on Hotel Online: The Scent of Litigation: Fragrance-Based ADA Claims Are Coming for Hospitality and Travel. Is Your Business Ready?