Cole & Van Note’s Marriott Lawsuit: ADA Fragrance Claims and Case Status

The Marriott fragrance ADA lawsuit is a class action filed in May 2026 by the Oakland firm Cole & Van Note, alleging that synthetic scents dispersed through Marriott hotels’ HVAC systems violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by making the properties inaccessible to guests and employees with chemical sensitivities.¹

Who Was Sued and Where

The case is Kovacs, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., et al., filed May 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No. 3:26-cv-04264. It was assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.²

Alongside Marriott International, the complaint names several hotel ownership and management companies: Host Hotels & Resorts, KHP Capital Partners, Sage Hospitality Group, and Shaner Hotel Holdings Limited Partnership. Shaner was voluntarily dismissed on June 19, 2026, and two other defendants — Michael G. Medzigian and Watermark Capital Partners — had been voluntarily dismissed a month earlier.²

What the Complaint Alleges

According to the filing, Marriott properties use scent machines integrated into building HVAC systems to disperse synthetic fragrances throughout common areas. The complaint says those fragrances contain volatile organic compounds, benzene derivatives, aldehydes, and phthalates, and it describes those chemicals as endocrine disruptors and potential carcinogens.¹

The plaintiffs say exposure causes respiratory, skin, and cognitive reactions in people with chemical sensitivities, effectively barring them from safely using the hotels. The legal claims rest on Title III of the ADA, which requires places of public accommodation to provide equal access to people with disabilities, and on several California statutes: the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the False Advertising Act, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law.³

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction requiring Marriott to change its fragrance practices, along with monetary damages. Firm founder Scott Cole called the case “the first of its kind” and said further filings should “serve as a warning to all businesses pushing synthetic fragrance on their customers and employees.”¹

How Strong Is the ADA Theory?

Whether fragrance sensitivity qualifies as a disability under the ADA is not a settled question, particularly for public accommodations. Most existing case law comes out of employment disputes. In McBride v. City of Detroit, a city planner with multiple chemical sensitivity won $100,000 after her employer failed to accommodate her reaction to a coworker’s perfume, with the court finding the condition interfered with the major life activity of breathing.⁴ That case involved a workplace, not a hotel.

On the Title III side, which governs hotels and restaurants, the U.S. Department of Justice addressed multiple chemical sensitivities when it updated the ADA’s Title III regulations in 2010. The DOJ declined to add MCS-specific provisions, stating that whether a person with chemical sensitivities has a disability must be assessed individually based on whether the condition “substantially limits one or more major life activities.” If it does, the business may be required to make reasonable modifications.⁵

That case-by-case standard cuts against a class-wide approach. To succeed at scale, Cole & Van Note will need to convince courts that fragrance sensitivity can be treated categorically across a class of plaintiffs, not just diagnosed one guest at a time.

Where the Case Stands

The case is in its early procedural stages. An initial case management scheduling order for ADA cases was issued on May 11, 2026, and summonses went out for the remaining defendants on May 14. By mid-June 2026, Marriott International and the Host Hotels entities had filed a stipulation asking for more time to respond to the complaint.² Marriott has not publicly responded to the substance of the allegations, and no court has ruled on the merits.

A Broader Litigation Campaign

The Marriott filing was not isolated. Within about a month, Cole & Van Note launched what the law firm Holland & Knight described in a June 15, 2026 client alert as a “wave of class action lawsuits” targeting major hospitality providers. All identified cases in the wave were brought by Cole & Van Note, filed in federal courts in California and Florida, and made similar allegations about scent dispersion machines pumping synthetic fragrances into common areas.⁶

Holland & Knight called the litigation an “emerging litigation risk” and advised hospitality and retail operators to audit their use of scent machines, review insurance coverage, and keep safety data sheets for fragrance products in use.⁶ Cole & Van Note’s own materials indicate the campaign reaches beyond hotels to cruise ships, buses, restaurants, medical facilities, and retail stores.⁷

The Firm Behind the Cases

Cole & Van Note is an Oakland-based class action firm founded in 1992 by Scott Cole, who has over 30 years of experience litigating class actions.⁸ The firm handles class actions in areas including data breaches, consumer fraud, and employment disputes, and says it has “secured billions of dollars and injunctions” for consumers and workers.⁹

The firm describes its fragrance work as a “movement” and says it is pursuing injunctions, damages, and reputational pressure aimed at getting businesses to abandon synthetic fragrances voluntarily.³ It is actively recruiting additional plaintiffs, particularly hotel guests who have had health reactions or avoided hotels because of fragrance use.⁷

1
BusinessWire. Cole Van Note Announces Filing of Marriott Hotels Fragrance Disability Class Action Lawsuit
2
PACER Monitor. Kovacs et al v. Marriott International, Inc. et al
3
Cole & Van Note. Fragrance
4
Labor Law Center. Fragrance Sensitivity a Disability Under ADA
5
Corada. ADA Title III Regulations – Multiple Chemical Sensitivities
6
Holland & Knight. Wave of Fragrance Class Actions Targets Hospitality Industry
7
Cole & Van Note. Fragrance FAQ and Legal Updates
8
Cole & Van Note. Scott Edward Cole Attorney Founder Profile
9
Cole & Van Note. Our Firm