ESG Enforcement Tracker

In July 2024, a class action claim was brought against Lululemon in the Southern District Court in Florida (the Court), claiming Lulumeon’s “Be Planet” marketing amounted to greenwashing. This followed the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) announcing an investigation into Lululemon’s marking for the same campaign in April 2024.

On 18 February 2025, the Court granted Lululemon’s motion to dismiss the class action claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that as part of Lululemon’s “Be Planet” campaign (the Campaign), Lululemon made environmental claims about the company’s products and actions that were false, deceptive and/or misleading. For example, the Campaign included comments that:

• 100% of the company’s products would include sustainable materials and end-of-use solutions by 2030;
• Lululemon would ensure at least 75% of its products contain sustainable materials by 2025;  and
• Source 100% renewable electricity to power the Company’s operations by 2021 and reduce carbon emissions across its global supply chain by 60% per unit of value added, meeting its Science-based Targets by 2030.

Lululemon filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on several grounds, including that the plaintiff’s failed to sufficiently satisfy standing requirements. The Court agreed with Lululemon’s submission that mere allegations of having paid a price premium were insufficient to demonstrate injury in fact to claim monetary damages. The plaintiffs claimed that but for Lululemon’s deceptive environmental statements, they would “not have paid as much for such products and, thus, they did not receive the benefit of the bargain, and they suffered out-of-pocket loss.” The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a factual connection between Lululemon’s prices of goods and the representations made.

Similarly, the Court accepted Lululemon’s argument that the plaintiff’s lacked standing for injunctive relief, as they had not demonstrated an imminent threat of injury by Lululemon again in a further matter.

The plaintiffs additionally sought leave to amend their complaint should Lululemon’s motion to dismiss be granted. This was denied on the basis that the application by the plaintiff’s was procedurally improper, in that it was included in a memorandum opposing Lululemon’s application, and the issue was not properly put before the court.