Lululemon PFAS Lawsuit: Warning Sign for Consumers (2025)

Lululemon PFAS Lawsuit Update

Lululemon is a $32 billion Canadian clothing retailer. It is one of the most valuable companies based in Canada and has a massive worldwide presence. In 2023, activist consumers filed a greenwashing class action lawsuit against Lululemon.

This suit focused on the company’s Go Planet advertising campaign. The plaintiffs alleged that the company took advantage of consumers by claiming that its products were sustainably sourced and environmentally friendly.

However, these products were not environmentally friendly because of massive greenhouse emissions produced during manufacturing and shipping. Worse yet, the company used synthetic fibers, like nylon and polyester, that shed microplastics and incorporated polymers from crude oil as inputs.

This lawsuit does not specifically identify per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as an ingredient used by Lululemon that is harmful to the environment. However, these chemicals are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment.

The Lululemon class action is not about toxic exposures. In other words, the business is not being accused of harming consumers who wore the company’s clothing that contained PFAS. Instead, it is based strictly on misleading consumers about the product’s environmental friendliness. Similar to the Simply Orange lawsuit, plaintiffs do not allege that consumers of Simply Orange juice products suffered disease or death from chemical exposure; rather, they allege that the company misled consumers by failing to disclose the existence of PFAS in its products.

Sources of PFAS Exposure

The Lululemon class action raises important issues about PFAS exposure. The use of these chemicals is so widespread that PFAS chemicals have been found in 99% of human blood samples.

The most common source of PFAS exposure is drinking water. Drinking water is not directly contaminated by PFAS. Instead, these chemicals are sprayed into the environment and enter the groundwater rather than breaking down.

Sources of groundwater and food contamination include:

• Aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) that use PFAS to smother fires
• Leaks from manufacturing facilities that use PFAS to make paper and electronics
• Stain and water-resistant textile and carpet treatments
• Cleaning products
• Paint, varnishes and sealants

Similarly, PFAS can migrate into food and drinks through the following:

• Food packaging, such as grease-resistant fast food containers and wrappers
• Non-stick cookware
• Fertilizer and animal feed exposed to contaminated wastewater

Most studies about PFAS have focused on the dangers of ingesting the chemicals through food and water. Skin exposure has only recently become a concern.

PFAS in Clothing

Lululemon produced clothing products that contained PFAS. These chemicals did not appear incidentally or in negligible amounts, either. In fact, they were deliberately incorporated into the textiles used to produce the clothing.

PFAS chemicals make textiles water and stain-resistant. Clothing articles like outerwear, boots and gloves are often treated with PFAS to make them waterproof and durable in harsh weather conditions. Lululemon produced stain-resistant yoga pants that were treated with PFAS.

The class action against Lululemon does not allege that consumers have suffered any adverse health effects from PFAS in their clothing. It only claims that PFAS and other potentially harmful chemicals used by Lululemon are inconsistent with its Go Planet advertising campaign.

Adverse Health Effects of PFAS Exposure

Although the Lululemon class action does not allege that consumers were exposed to toxins, a future Lululemon PFAS lawsuit could very well do so. PFAS chemicals are endocrine disrupters that interfere with the body’s chemical signals carried by hormones. Studies have found the following health risks of PFAS exposure:

• Decreased fertility in women
• High blood pressure in pregnant women
• Low birth weight
• Developmental delays in children
• Prostate, kidney and testicular cancer
• Suppressed immune system
• Increased cholesterol
• Obesity

For example, firefighters exposed to AFFFs have suffered from cancer, thyroid disease and liver damage. Their class action lawsuit specifically focuses on the adverse health effects of inhaling or ingesting PFAS in firefighting foams.

Since absorption through the skin has received little attention, there is currently no way to assess the risks of PFAS in clothing. However, Lululemon has added PFAS to its restricted substances list so that future products will not contain these chemicals.

Future PFAS Lawsuits

Science may eventually prove that PFAS in clothing can cause adverse health effects. If it does, Lululemon and other clothing manufacturers could face lawsuits about toxic exposure.

These lawsuits would likely follow the pattern of the cases surrounding AFFFs. A class of individuals who suffered the same or similar health problems will be identified and then linked to the same types of exposures.

A clothing case, for example, may tie children with low birth weight and delayed development to mothers who wore yoga pants treated with PFAS during pregnancy. If the plaintiffs in these cases can prove liability, Lululemon may need to pay injured victims for the losses they incurred.

Product liability cases are based on strict liability in most states. Strict liability means that the victim does not need to prove the manufacturer intended to distribute defective products. The victim does not even need to show that the manufacturer knew of the dangers its goods posed.

Instead, victims only need to demonstrate two elements. First, they need to prove that the product contained a defect when it left the manufacturer’s hands. Second, they need to show that the defect caused their injuries.

In the case of clothing treated with PFAS, the plaintiffs could allege that the products contained a design defect. They might argue that there was no safe way to wear the clothing without being exposed to dangerous chemicals that eventually caused cancer.

Contact ConsumerShield to Learn More

Scientists have still not fully evaluated the dangers of PFAS in clothing. However, the class action against Lululemon is a warning to both consumers and manufacturers to be aware of PFAS in clothing and its potential risks.

If you suffer from a serious health condition and believe clothing-based PFAS may be to blame, contact ConsumerShield for a free case evaluation and an attorney referral.