In 2020, "athleisure" fashion brand Lululemon launched its "Be Planet" marketing campaign. As part of the campaign, Lululemon made a variety of claims about its sustainability efforts, including that "100% of the Company's products will include sustainable materials and end-of-use solutions by 2030," that the company will "Ensure at least 75% of its products contain sustainable materials by 2025," and that it will "Offer guests new options to extend the life of its products by providing resell, repair, and/or recycle options by 2025."
A group of consumers sued (under Florida, New York, and California law), alleging that Lululemon's environmental marketing claims are false and misleading on the grounds that the claims overemphasized the significance of the company's environmental initiatives. The plaintiffs alleged that they were injured by these allegedly false claims because, in reliance on these claims, they paid a price premium for Lululemon's products.
Lululemon moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they had not sufficiently alleged that they had suffered an actual injury. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case. Here's why.
In order for consumers to demonstrate that there has been an economic injury, they must show that they have been derived of the "benefit of the bargain." Here, the consumers argued that their injury stemmed from the allegedly inflated price that they paid for Lululemon products. The court held, however, that "mere allegations of having paid a price premium are insufficient – a plaintiff must tie the value of the product to any purported misrepresentation." Noting that the plaintiffs had not alleged that the products were "defective or worthless," the court determined that they had simply failed to allege a connection between the value of Lululemon's products and Lululemon's alleged misrepresentations.
What's interesting to me about this case is how easily the court dismissed it, not really wrestling at all with the impact of Lululemon's allegedly misleading environmental marketing claims. Thinking about recent dismissals against JBS, Exxon and other fossil fuel companies, and Danone, for example, it's hard not to wonder whether there is increasing skepticism by courts about false advertising claims based on allegations of greenwashing.
Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica, 2025 WL 548405 (S.D. Fla. 2025).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
