Class action lawsuit claims Lululemon “exploits” consumers through greenwashing

A new class action lawsuit accuses Lululemon of being a mean, anything but environmentally friendly sports leisure marketing machine.

Amandeep Gyani, a Florida resident, filed the proposed class action lawsuit on July 12 in the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit accuses Lululemon’s “Be Planet” marketing campaign, which the company launched in October 2020, of being “misleading” and alleges that the company “… exploited consumers and their trust through a massive, global ‘greenwashing’ campaign.”

Gyani is seeking an injunction to end the Be Planet campaign, as well as monetary compensation for actual damages suffered by consumers purchasing Lululemon products. The proposed classes include anyone in the United States who has purchased a non-resale product from the company since the launch of the Be Planet campaign, as well as anyone who has purchased a non-resale Lululemon product since the launch of the Be Planet campaign in Florida.

The lawsuit describes the severity of the climate crisis and the role of the fashion and apparel industry in perpetuating it, highlighting the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, synthetic fibers and more. These types of considerations, Gyani’s lawyer said, are increasingly coming into focus, especially when it comes to consumers’ product purchasing habits.

“Consumers are increasingly concerned about the environment. They want to avoid brands that sell products that contribute to climate change or planetary destruction, and they are willing to pay higher prices for products that are sustainably produced, environmentally friendly, and have a positive impact on the planet,” the complaint states. “In other words, these issues are not only important to consumers’ purchasing decisions, they are a priority. Lululemon knows this and takes advantage of it.”

The complaint notes that Lululemon’s extensive sustainability-focused marketing campaigns include statements such as “Our products and actions avoid environmental harm and help restore a healthy planet.” Yet Gyani alleges that Lululemon’s practices, particularly with regard to Category 3 greenhouse gas emissions and the use of synthetic materials, are inconsistent with such messaging.

A Lululemon spokesperson said the company stands by its statements.

“We are aware of the recent lawsuit and are confident that the statements we make to the public accurately reflect our impact goals and commitments,” the spokesperson told Sourcing Journal via email. “Be Planet is not a marketing campaign. It is a pillar of our impact strategy that outlines the vision, goals and objectives that guide our actions and investments. These include 2030 climate targets and a 2050 net zero target, both of which are externally validated (SBTi).”

Emissions

Gyani points to Lululemon’s Scope 3 emissions reporting, as outlined in the company’s annual impact reports, which show that Scope 3 emissions more than doubled between 2020, when the company launched the Be Planet campaign, and 2022. The company has not yet released its 2023 impact report.

The lawsuit alleges that Lululemon’s Scope 3 emissions will only continue to rise as the company plans to increase its sales.

“Lululemon’s emissions in 2022 are equivalent to burning over 720 million litres of gasoline, over 3.8 million barrels of oil, or fueling over 518,000 passenger vehicles in one year. To make matters worse, Lululemon’s emissions are expected to continue to increase significantly as the company has a stated goal of doubling its revenue from 2021 to 2026, which will mean increased apparel production in the supply chain with a corresponding increase in the company’s Scope 3 emissions,” the complaint states.

Gyani later points out Lululemon’s alleged preference for transporting goods by air freight, noting that the company ships a significantly higher proportion of products manufactured by suppliers in Vietnam and Sri Lanka by air freight compared to competitors such as Nike, Adidas or Puma.

“A company like Lululemon, which claims to take actions that not only avoid harm to the planet but actively contribute to a healthy planet, would minimize the use of air freight to prioritize the health of the planet. However, when Lululemon faced supply chain difficulties, the company chose to significantly increase the use of air freight without regard to the increasing negative environmental impacts,” the complaint states.

The Lululemon spokesperson said the company has made some progress in meeting its emissions targets, but there is still a long way to go.

“We have achieved a 60 percent absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at our owned and operated facilities, but recognize that the majority of our climate impact comes from emissions from our broader supply chain,” they said. “We are taking direct action and are committed to working with industry partners to reduce supply chain impacts on climate change. We welcome dialogue and remain focused on driving progress. This work is far from complete.”

Synthetic fibers

Although Gyani’s concerns about emissions form a large part of the argument that Lululemon’s marketing and advertising are misleading, the complaint also addresses Lululemon’s use of synthetic materials – particularly polyester and nylon.

According to the complaint, synthetic fabrics make up about 60 percent of Lululemon’s material mix.

According to its 2022 Impact Report, Lululemon is working to transition 100 percent of its fibers to what it calls “preferred materials.” The company uses Textile Exchange’s definition of preferred material: “A material that results in improved environmental and/or social sustainability outcomes and impacts compared to conventional production.”

But Gyani says synthetic fabrics like polyester and nylon are almost never truly sustainable because they can release microplastics and fossil fuels must be used to produce new polyester and nylon.

“Although Lululemon claims to be switching to recycled polyester and nylon in its products, experts do not consider these products a truly sustainable alternative because they are energy-intensive to produce, are not biodegradable, and continue to release microplastics,” the complaint states.

Resale

The complaint also challenges the validity of Lululemon’s claims about its Like New program, which allows consumers to trade in used goods for a Lululemon gift card. The company cleans the products consumers return and then offers them on the resale section of its website at lower prices than new items.

According to the complaint, the athletic apparel company’s website once read: “What’s better than finding great deals on used Lululemon gear? Knowing you’re helping to make the planet a healthier place.”

Gyani argues, however, that even this statement is false and that the impact of such a resale program is greatly exaggerated. He claims that Lululemon is using the “relatively small benefits of this program in terms of harm reduction to repeat and emphasize the false message that it is ‘helping to restore a healthier planet.'”

The program, Gyani said, is “not well designed to achieve its stated goals” because the company “requires that products be returned in like-new condition and gift cards issued in exchange for like-new products can only be used for new items.”

“In other words, while the program potentially encourages certain clothing items to be worn longer, it also encourages increased consumption of new clothing,” the complaint states.

Gyani is not the only one who has doubts about the validity of Lululemon’s sustainability claims. Stand.earth filed a complaint with the Canadian government earlier this year, making similar allegations to Gyani’s. In May, Canada’s Competition Bureau opened a formal investigation into the company’s marketing practices based on Stand.earth’s complaint, but the agency has not yet announced the results of that investigation.