Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica Inc.

The federal district court for the Southern District of California found that consumer plaintiffs lacked standing for their greenwashing suit against the athleisure apparel company Lululemon Athletica, Inc. (Lululemon). The plaintiffs alleged that Lululemon made false, deceptive, or misleading environmental claims about its products, including statements about its commitments to reducing carbon emissions associated with its global supply chain. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege any factual connection between the allegedly deceptive statements and the value of Lululemon products, and therefore did not allege an economic injury to support a claim for damages. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to allege a threat of imminent injury based on potential future purchases and therefore lacked standing to seek injunctive relief.

A putative consumer class action filed in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida alleged that Lululemon Athletica Inc. and Lululemon USA Inc. (Lululemon)—“one of the world’s largest and most popular ‘athleisure’ fashion brands”—had engaged in a “massive, global ‘greenwashing’ campaign” that misled consumers to believe that the defendants’ business practices, products, and actions had a positive impact on the environment. The allegations included that Lululemon made representations regarding climate change, including inclusion in its “Be Planet” marketing campaign of commitments to “[s]ource 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.” The complaint alleged that contrary to the campaign’s messages, “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,” with its greenhouse gas emissions more than doubling since the start of the Be Planet campaign in 2020. Specific allegations regarding misrepresentations related to the company’s greenhouse gas emission targets included that its representations regarding its target to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 60% was misleading because such emissions constitute only 3% of Lululemon’s total greenhouse gas emission and achievement of the target would therefore have only a negligible impact. In addition, the complaint alleged that the 60% reduction target for Scope 3 emissions was misleading because it was an “intensity-based” target and achievement would not necessarily result in absolute emissions reductions. The complaint further alleged that Lululemon’s representations were misleading because the company had achieved only a 7% reduction in the intensity of Scope 3 emissions. The complaint asserted a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as well as claims of misleading advertising and unjust enrichment.