The News
Lululemon settled a Texas investigation into PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in its clothing, Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Oct 22. For three years, Lululemon must keep requiring its suppliers to prove their materials meet its chemical restrictions.
The settlement carries no fine and no admission of wrongdoing, Lululemon said.
“This agreement ensures that Lululemon remains accountable for enforcing its chemical safety standards,” Paxton said.
The details
Texas has no law banning PFAS in consumer products, so Paxton used the state’s consumer protection law instead. His office announced the investigation in April.
It was looking for PFAS “that health conscious customers would not expect based on the brand’s marketing,” according to Footwear Magazine.
It asked for Lululemon’s restricted substances list, its testing rules and its supply chain practices, ESG Dive reported.
The state found no PFAS in Lululemon’s products. The problem it raised was missing supplier paperwork.
Texas alleged that Lululemon failed to collect signed acknowledgments of its restricted substances list from two suppliers for one edition of the list, the settlement says. Both suppliers have since signed.
Lululemon said it gave the state third-party lab test reports. The state’s review of those documents found no PFAS, the settlement says.
The settlement spells out what Lululemon must collect from each supplier and what happens when that proof lapses.
Each supplier must send test reports from a lab Lululemon nominates or a valid certificate from bluesign, OEKO-TEX Standard 100 or another certifier named in Lululemon’s list.
When a supplier’s certificate expires or is not renewed, Lululemon must have that supplier’s materials tested.
One supplier breaking the rules is not a breach if Lululemon did not know about it and takes “commercially reasonable corrective action” once it finds out.
Lululemon says it phased out intentionally added PFAS from its products in fiscal 2023. Its own limit already matches the next step in California’s law.
Lululemon’s restricted substances list caps total organic fluorine at 50 parts per million, Pillsbury noted.
California’s limit for clothing and other textiles drops to 50 ppm on Jan 1, 2027. Manufacturers must give sellers certificates showing they comply.
My notes
Texas didn’t need a PFAS ban to go after Lululemon. Paxton’s office used the state’s consumer protection law and asked whether Lululemon’s products matched its health marketing. A state with no chemical rules of its own can still investigate a brand this way.
Texas settled over two unsigned supplier forms. The state found no PFAS in Lululemon’s products. Its only allegation was that two suppliers had not signed one edition of Lululemon’s restricted substances list. Any apparel brand can be asked for the same supplier file.
One bad supplier won’t put Lululemon in breach. The settlement measures whether Lululemon collects the reports and acts when a supplier slips. It says compliance is judged “not by whether any individual Vendor achieves perfect compliance with every RSL parameter at all times.” That gives other apparel brands a working model of what a state attorney general accepted.
What’s next
California’s 50 ppm limit takes effect Jan 1, 2027. Lululemon’s commitments in Texas run for three years from the day the court signs the settlement. Paxton’s office is also investigating Hanes and Fruit of the Loom over chemicals in children’s clothing.
(Photo: Ajay Suresh / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0)
