No Standing Here: Takeaways From Lululemon’s Greenwashing Litigation

As consumer products companies well know, alleged “greenwashing” litigation has become one of the most popular types of suits brought by plaintiffs’ attorneys. Typically, these cases involve a plaintiff alleging that a company has advertised its product as being more environmentally friendly (or “greener”) than it actually is. While the analysis in these greenwashing cases typically hinges on whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived, the United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a lawsuit against Lululemon, an athleisure company, without delving into a reasonable consumer analysis. Instead, the court focused on whether or not the plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit in the first place, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to connect the alleged misrepresentations to a specific Lululemon product. The court’s analysis is an important reminder of the pleading hurdles that exist for plaintiffs in filing consumer litigation demands – specifically establishing Article III standing.

Gyani v. Lululemon USA Inc.

On February 18, 2025, Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a lawsuit against Lululemon. The complaint centered around Lululemon’s “Be Planet” marketing campaign, which announced the company’s sustainable business plans. The plaintiffs also targeted other Lululemon sustainability claims, including that “by adopting and evolving practices and mindful solutions, we enhance the products we offer and contribute to restoring the environment.” The plaintiffs alleged that Lululemon “made false, deceptive, and misleading representations that overemphasized the significance of certain environmental initiatives” because Lululemon’s environmental initiatives did not significantly reduce the company’s overall environmental impact. These marketing statements, the plaintiffs argued, led them to rely on Lululemon’s environmental promises when deciding to purchase the company’s products.

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must assert (1) an injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. In Lululemon, the plaintiffs attempted to establish standing by asserting that Lululemon’s deceptive advertising caused them to “pay a price premium,” resulting in an economic injury. To refute plaintiffs’ position, Lululemon argued that the plaintiffs could not show that the products were worth less than they paid for them or were defective. The court agreed, explaining that the plaintiffs failed to connect the alleged misrepresentations to the payment of a premium price. The court stated that the plaintiffs’ claims were “nothing more than a subjective belief” and that “[p]laintiffs’ allegations fail to tie any aspect of Lululemon’s statements to the purported price premium they paid for Lululemon’s products.”

Notably, the court did not consider whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived by Lululemon’s claims, which is often the hallmark of greenwashing litigation at the pleading stage. Instead, the court concluded that a general environmental promise is not a specific representation that attaches a price premium to a particular product.

Takeaways

This decision is the latest in a long line of decisions assessing a consumer’s ability to challenge a company’s environmental statements under the guise of consumer fraud litigation linked to specific products. Courts have generally struggled with how to assess such untethered “greenwashing” claims. We are pleased to see, however, the evolving trend requiring plaintiffs to connect their allegations about specific products to specific statements being made. As consumers continue to seek transparency from corporations regarding the impact of company practices on the environment, the risk of consumer protection litigation will persist. The Lululemon action however, is an important reminder, that not all litigation demands are ripe for consideration by the courts. To help separate the wheat from the chaff, it is important to ensure plaintiffs’ counsel meets its obligation to fully assert (1) an injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Not every challenge has merit, and Lululemon is a great reminder of why.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.