Amandeep Gyani, a Florida resident, filed the proposed class action on July 12 in Florida’s Southern District. The complaint accuses Lululemon’s “Be Planet” marketing campaign, which the company launched in October 2020, of being “misleading,” and alleges the company “has taken advantage of…consumers and their trust through a massive, global ‘greenwashing’ campaign.”
Gyani seeks an injunction to end the Be Planet campaign, as well as financial awards for actual damages consumers sustained when purchasing Lululemon’s products. The proposed classes include anyone in the United States who has purchased a non-resale product from the company since the Be Planet campaign launched and anyone who purchased a non-resale Lululemon product in Florida since the launch of the Be Planet campaign.
The complaint outlines the severity of the climate crisis and the fashion and apparel industries’ role in perpetuating it, highlighting the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, synthetic fibers and more. Those types of considerations, Gyani’s counsel contends, have started to come into the spotlight, particularly where consumers’ product consideration patterns are concerned.
“Consumers have become increasingly concerned about the environment. They seek to avoid brands that sell products that contribute to climate change or the degradation of the planet, and they are willing to pay premium prices for products that are sustainably produced, environmentally friendly and positively restore the planet,” the complaint says. “In other words, these issues are not only material to consumers’ purchasing decisions, but they are a priority. Lululemon knows this and exploits it.”
The complaint notes that Lululemon’s extensive, sustainability-focused marketing campaigns include copy like, “Our products and actions avoid environmental harm and contribute to restoring a healthy planet.” But, Gyani alleges, Lululemon’s practices, particularly around Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions and use of synthetic materials, don’t align with messages like those.
A spokesperson for Lululemon said the company stands by its statements.
“We are aware of the recent lawsuit and are confident 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, outlining the vision, goals and targets which guide our actions and investments. This includes 2030 climate targets and a 2050 net zero goal, both of which are externally validated (SBTi).”
Emissions
Gyani points to Lululemon’s Scope 3 emissions reporting, as laid out in the company’s annual impact reports, which shows that its Scope 3 emissions have more than doubled between 2020, when it launched the Be Planet campaign, and 2022. The company has not yet released its 2023 impact report.
The complaint alleges Lululemon’s Scope 3 emissions will only continue to grow as the company plots to up its revenue.
“Lululemon’s 2022 emissions are the equivalent of burning over 720 million liters of gasoline, over 3.8 million barrels of oil or the fueling of over 518,000 passenger vehicles for a year. To make matters worse, Lululemon’s emissions are on track to continue to increase significantly as the company has a stated goal of doubling its 2021 revenue by 2026, which will mean increased apparel manufacturing through its supply chain, with a corresponding increase in the company’s Scope 3 emissions,” the complaint alleges.
Gyani later points to Lululemon’s purported penchant for transporting goods via air freight, noting that it ships a significantly higher proportion of the products manufactured by suppliers in Vietnam and Sri Lanka via air when compared to competitors like Nike, Adidas or Puma.
“A company such as Lululemon that represents itself as taking actions which not only avoid harming 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 faced with supply chain difficulties, Lululemon chose to significantly increase its use of air freight, in disregard for the increased detrimental impacts on the environment,” the complaint says.
The Lululemon spokesperson said the company has made some progress toward its emissions goals but still has a ways to go.
“We have achieved a 60 percent absolute reduction of greenhouse emissions in our owned and operated facilities but recognize most of our climate impact comes from emissions of our broader supply chain,” they said. “We are taking direct action and are committed to collaborating with industry partners to help address supply chain impacts on climate change. We welcome dialogue and remain focused on driving progress. This work is far from complete.”
Synthetic fibers
Though Gyani’s concerns about emissions make up a large part of the argument that Lululemon’s marketing and advertising is deceptive, the complaint also dives into Lululemon’s use of synthetics—particularly polyester and nylon.
According to the complaint, synthetics account for about 60 percent of Lululemon’s material mix.
According to its 2022 impact report, Lululemon is working toward transitioning 100 percent of its fibers to what it calls “preferred materials.” It uses Textile Exchange’s definition of a preferred material to define that term: “one which results in improved environmental and/or social sustainability outcomes and impacts compared to conventional production.”
But, Gyani contends, synthetics like polyester and nylon are almost never truly sustainable because they can shed microplastics and because the creation of virgin polyester and nylon requires the use of fossil fuels.
“While Lululemon claims that it is converting to recycled polyester and nylon in its products, experts do not consider these products to be a truly sustainable alternative as they are energy intensive to manufacture, do not biodegrade and still release microplastics,” the complaint argues.
Resale
The complaint also goes after the validity of claims Lululemon makes about its Like New program, which allows consumers to trade used merchandise for a Lululemon gift card. The company cleans the products consumers turn in, then lists them on the resale section of its site at lower prices than new items.
According to the complaint, the athletic wear company’s website at one time read, “What’s better than great finds on gently used Lululemon gear? Knowing you’re helping restore a healthier planet.”
Gyani, though, argues that even that statement is false and that the impact of such a resale program is far overblown, alleging that Lululemon uses the “relatively minor harm reduction benefits of this program to repeat and emphasize the false message that [it] is ‘helping restore a healthier planet.’”
The program, Gyani contends, “is not well designed to achieve its stated goals” since the company “requires products to be returned in ‘like new’ condition, and gift cards given in exchange for ‘like new products can only be used on new items.”
“In other words, while potentially promoting the use of some clothes for longer periods of time, the program is also promoting increased consumption of new clothes,” the complaint argues.
Gyani isn’t the only one with questions about the validity of Lululemon’s sustainability-based 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, though the agency has not yet announced the results of that investigation.
