A court has dismissed a lawsuit filed against athleisure brand Lululemon, filed by a group of consumers who alleged the brand’s “Be Planet” amounted to greenwashing. The lawsuit, filed in Florida, stated that the marketing campaign was false and misleading on the grounds that the claims overemphasized the significance of the company’s environmental initiatives. The plaintiffs had claimed that they were injured by these allegedly false claims because, in reliance on the claims, they paid a price premium for Lululemon’s products.

Lululemon’s ‘Be Planet’ marketing campaign and website emphasized the brand’s commitment to making products and taking actions that ‘avoid environmental harm and contribute to restoring a healthy planet’ – pledges it encapsulated under the slogan “Be planet.”

The plaintiffs claimed that as a major clothing brand, 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 — the opposite of its Be Planet promises and representations,” per court documents. The complaint also referred to the brand’s use of polyester and nylon in more than 60 per cent of its material mix, which can release large amounts of microplastics. 

The fashion industry is estimated to be responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions – more than aviation and maritime shipping combined – as well as polluting water, destroying forests, and releasing microplastics into our food chains. Conversely, few industries tout their eco credentials and commitment to sustainability as loudly as fashion. Search the term “sustainable fashion” on google and you’ll be met by over 262,000,000 results. 

The case was dismissed not because the court believed Lululemon are in fact a sustainable and environmentally friendly clothing brand, but because the brand’s lawyers successfully argued that the plaintiffs had no standing. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiffs had not suffered any actual injury and that “mere allegations of having paid a price premium are insufficient – a plaintiff must tie the value of the product to any purported misrepresentation.”