A growing number of hotel guests with fragrance sensitivities in California have filed class-action lawsuits against major hotel chains, alleging that the widespread use of synthetic scents in public spaces violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The legal actions, initiated in May and June by the Oakland-based law firm Cole & Van Note, claim that artificial fragrances create health hazards for individuals with asthma, chemical sensitivities, and other related conditions.
The lawsuits specifically target well-known hotel companies, including Marriott International Inc. and Hyatt Hotels Corp. While some cases, such as one filed against Marriott in early May, have since been dropped, others remain active in the initial stages. Attorney Scott Cole, founder of the firm, emphasized the ubiquity of fragrance use during a recent visit to Las Vegas, where he observed that the majority of locations employed scent or elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Cole’s firm cites statistics suggesting that approximately 27% of adults suffer from asthma or chemical sensitivities, conditions that may be triggered or worsened by exposure to synthetic fragrances dispersed via scent machines. The complaints detail a range of symptoms attributed to these exposures, including respiratory issues, headaches, skin irritation, and cognitive difficulties. Some of the dismissed federal cases are currently being refiled in state courts, with additional lawsuits anticipated beyond California.
Representatives of the California Hotel & Lodging Association stressed their members’ commitment to maintaining safe and accessible environments for all guests. However, industry leaders including Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, Intercontinental Hotels Group, and Loews Hotels have not publicly commented on the litigation. Meanwhile, the American Hotel & Lodging Association characterized recent ADA-based claims as opportunistic legal actions aimed at securing settlements on vague grounds.
The debate touches on complex questions about the definition of disability under the ADA, the obligations of businesses to accommodate sensitivities, and regulatory oversight of fragrance ingredients. The U.S. government typically does not require full disclosure of fragrance components, as blends are considered trade secrets and fall outside stringent Food and Drug Administration regulations. Alexander M. Spokoyny, chair of UCLA’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, noted that this limited regulation calls for greater public scrutiny given potential health risks.
Outside the courtroom, conversations about fragrance sensitivity are gaining attention on social media, where some travelers advocate for bans on artificial scents comparable to smoking restrictions, while others report minimal effects on their experiences. Some hotels accommodate scent-sensitive guests by preparing unscented rooms upon advance request, and certain environmentally focused chains, such as Soul Community Planet Hotels based in Laguna Beach, use plant-based essential oil diffusers instead of synthetic scents.
Despite the controversy, the scent marketing industry continues to flourish globally, generating an estimated $4.1 billion annually. Hotel chains, including Marriott and its subsidiaries like Ritz-Carlton and Sheraton, market signature candles and diffusers to reinforce brand loyalty. Scent-marketing firms such as North Carolina’s ScentAir and Australia’s Air Aroma have developed custom fragrances for leading hotel brands, emphasizing the role of scent in evoking memories and emotions.
Nonetheless, some experts urge caution. Spokoyny warned that even natural fragrances, when aerosolized and distributed in enclosed spaces, could pose health concerns and should be examined more rigorously to ensure public safety. As this legal and public discussion evolves, hotels and regulatory bodies may face increasing pressure to balance scent marketing practices with the needs of sensitive guests.