Lululemon is facing a class action lawsuit over claims that its marketing campaigns do not accurately reflect the environmental harm the company is causing. It accuses the company of a massive ‘greenwashing’ campaign to make customers believe that that the company’s actions are sustainable and have a positive impact on the environment.
Lululemon has had a spectacular rise in growth since it was launched in 1998 in in Vancouver, Canada. What started as a Yoga brand has expanded to cover all varieties of women and men’s casual and athletic wear plus accessories. It’s now a behemoth with net turnover of $2.2 billion in the first quarter of 2024 alone. It held $1.9 billion in case at the end of the same quarter.
The lawsuit, filed in Florida, asks for a trial by jury and alleges that Lululemon used its marketing campaigns to portray the company as not only environmentally friendly but having a positive impact on the on the environment and the restoration of a healthy planet.
It alleges the company’s “campaign messages are unfair, false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable consumers as they portray Lululemon as something it is not.”
Lululemon has a significant and growing climate and environmental footprint, and its actions and products directly cause harm to the environment and the deterioration of the planet’s health – the opposite of its Be Planet promises and representations.
Instead of sustaining and positively improving the planet, Lululemon is increasingly causing negative impact and harm.
It further states that Lululemon’s greenhouse gas emissions have more than doubled since its Be Planet campaign in 2020.
Lululemon – Be Planet
The suit, filed by Amandeep Gyani says the plaintiff “relied on Lululemon’s deceptive and misleading marketing messages in deciding to purchase its products.” It says many products made by Lululemon are made from polyester and nylon which are derived from fossil fuels and over 80% of Lululemons manufacturers and suppliers are located in countries with significant fossil fuel reliance such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. The company’s claims about about working with suppliers to reduce emissions and on-site coal boilers are unverifiable as its suppliers do not publish information about green-house energy or efforts to reduce emissions.
It gives an example of Tan De Co Ltd., which is one of Lululemon’s largest suppliers, saying the company “does not publicly report using any renewable energy to power its factories, has not set public targets to reduce its emissions, and does not have a published plan to phase out coal use.”