Florida Court Hands Lululemon a Win in Greenwashing Action

Lululemon has secured a win in a lawsuit that alleged it used greenwashing to deceive consumers.

The Canadian athleisure brand has staved off a class-action lawsuit from a group of plaintiffs throughout the U.S. who alleged it “has taken advantage of…consumers and their trust through a massive, global ‘greenwashing’ campaign.” 

Amandeep Gyani filed the original complaint in a Florida court last year, and a group of additional plaintiffs co-filed an amended complaint alongside Gyani in September 2024. Effectively, the group argued that they had been financially harmed by Lululemon’s marketing activities, specifically pertaining to the company’s “Be Planet” campaign. 

But Lululemon clapped back, asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit on a number of grounds, including lack of jurisdiction in the matter and the company’s opinion that the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Lululemon’s statements and sustainability goals cause direct injury. 

“Not one of the plaintiffs pleads: which of Lululemon’s statements, if any, they saw; when they purportedly saw the statements; when they purportedly purchased Lululemon products as a result of the statements or which Lululemon products they purportedly purchased,” counsel for Lululemon wrote in the motion to dismiss, filed just two weeks after plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. 

Throughout the plaintiffs’ complaint, they note that some consumers choose to “​​pay the exorbitant premiums” because they believe that, in doing so, they are purchasing products that are an environmentally friendly choice. 

But in its motion to dismiss, Lululemon notes that the plaintiffs do not make claims about the quality of the products they allegedly purchased from the company.

“Plaintiffs do not allege that they did not receive the goods they purchased from Lululemon, or that those goods were defective. Instead, Plaintiffs contend that if they had known the proverbial ‘truth’ about Lululemon’s environmental efforts, they would not have purchased those products at such a premium,” the company wrote. 

It stacked the motion high with legal precedent to show that, in other cases, consumers bringing action against companies saw cases dismissed for the same reason. 

Judge Beth Bloom agreed with the company in a Wednesday decision, noting that “plaintiffs fail to allege that Lululemon’s products were defective or worthless,” and without the causation connection, the plaintiffs could not sufficiently argue their case.

“As Lululemon highlights, mere allegations of having paid a price premium are insufficient—a plaintiff must tie the value of the product to any purported misrepresentation,” Bloom wrote in her decision. 

Part of the problem for the plaintiffs stemmed from the remedy they sought in their complaint; while they looked for monetary damages, they also sought an injunction “to end Lululemon’s unlawful marketing campaign and ongoing deception of consumers.” 

Had it been granted, such an injunction would have seen Lululemon permanently unable to use some of the statements linked to its Be Planet efforts. The company argued that, in order to qualify for an injunction, plaintiffs would need to provide evidence of “real and immediate—as opposed to a merely conjectural or hypothetical—threat of future injury.” That argument comes from legal precedent.

Because plaintiffs hinged their argument for an injunction on the idea that they’d purchase products if Lululemon remedied its marketing to their standards, rather than showing that they would face immediate harm from purchasing products as they are, the judge sided with the company. 

“The Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiffs ‘would like’ to purchase Lululemon’s products, but ‘only if’ they can rely on Lululemon ‘to be truthful in their marketing statements regarding the sustainability and environmental impact of Lululemon’s products and actions,’” Bloom wrote. “Plaintiffs fail to allege any threat of imminent injury and therefore lack standing to pursue injunctive relief.” 

A Lululemon spokesperson said the company is glad to see the judge side with it in this case. 

“We are pleased with the court’s decision and remain committed to our impact work and driving meaningful progress,” the spokesperson said via email. 

Still, Lululemon faces other scrutiny surrounding its Be Planet campaign and sustainability claims, including from the government of Canada. 

Previously, a Lululemon spokesperson told Sourcing Journal the company remains “confident the statements we make to the public accurately reflect our impact goals and commitments,” but that, despite making some progress toward its climate goals, “This work is far from complete.”