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).
www.fkks.com
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We
provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein &
Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not
be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or
omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which
they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent
clients in other jurisdictions.
link
