�鶹ֱ��

Summary

The Texas Attorney General (AG) has issued a to Lululemon USA Inc. (Lululemon) to examine whether the athletic apparel company misled consumers about the alleged presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” in products marketed as wellness‑ and sustainability‑focused. The investigation highlights the growing willingness of state attorneys general to use consumer protection laws to scrutinize chemical disclosures, supply chain practices, and brand messaging in the consumer products space.

Key Takeaways: 

• The Texas AG has launched a civil investigation into Lululemon over the potential presence of PFAS — or “forever chemicals” — in activewear marketed to health‑conscious consumers.
• The investigation highlights growing state AG scrutiny of product safety, chemical disclosures, and wellness‑ and sustainability‑focused marketing claims in the consumer products and apparel space.
• Companies should view this action as part of a broader trend of state attorneys general leveraging consumer protection statutes to examine supply chains, testing protocols, and marketing narratives.

On April 13, Texas AG Ken Paxton issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Lululemon as part of an investigation into whether the company misled consumers about the safety, quality, and health impacts of its athletic apparel. The investigation is centered on the potential presence of PFAS, commonly referred to as “forever chemicals,” in Lululemon products marketed to health‑conscious consumers.

This development underscores a growing enforcement focus by state attorneys general on product safety representations, chemical disclosures, and brand sustainability claims — particularly in the apparel and consumer wellness space.

What the Texas AG Is Investigating

According to the AG’s Office, the investigation will examine whether Lululemon’s athletic apparel contains PFAS that consumers would not reasonably expect based on the company’s branding and marketing as a wellness‑focused and sustainability‑oriented company.

As part of the CID, the AG is seeking information related to:

• Lululemon’s Restricted Substances List
• Testing protocols used to identify chemicals in its products
• Supply chain practices related to material sourcing and compliance
• Whether product safety and health representations align with internal standards and practices

AG Paxton framed the investigation as a consumer protection issue, stating that consumers should not be misled when attempting to make health‑conscious purchasing decisions and emphasizing that companies marketing premium wellness products will be scrutinized if those claims are inaccurate or deceptive.

Why This Matters Beyond Texas

Although this investigation is being led by a single state, it reflects broader enforcement patterns we are seeing across state attorneys general offices nationwide. In particular, the Lululemon CID highlights several trends with relevance far beyond one company or jurisdiction.

As of December 2024, the AG of 30 states and the District of Columbia initiated litigation against the manufacturers making or utilizing certain PFAS chemicals for allegedly contaminating water supplies and other natural resources.

In January 2025, California and New York surprised many by going further and in most future apparel sales (and “textiles” generally, in the case of California). Meanwhile states like Minnesota and Maine have begun the process of phasing PFAS out products sold in the state altogether.

In April 2025, Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. signaled an interest in following suit by indicating , a state in which much PFAS has been , that “[w]e want to end the production of PFAS ultimately.”

On April 13, 2026, it was that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was “sitting on” dozens of approvals of uses for PFAS “forever chemicals.” 

On the same day, with the Texas legislature out of session until January 2027, the Texas AG’s office expanded upon these developments by that it had 

…issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Lululemon USA Inc. as part of an investigation into whether the company has misled consumers about the safety, quality, and health impacts of its products [but not for contaminating natural resources but, instead] …examin[ing] whether Lululemon’s athletic apparel contains PFAS or “forever chemicals” that their health-conscious customers would not expect based on the brand’s marketing.

The press release went on to assert that “emerging research and consumer concerns have raised questions about the potential presence of certain synthetic materials and chemical compounds in their apparel that may be associated with endocrine disruption, infertility, cancer, and other health issues.”

Impacts on Apparel Retailers and Textile Distributors

State attorneys general are increasingly turning their attention to consumer goods, including textiles and apparel — particularly where products are worn close to the body and marketed for health, wellness, or performance benefits. 

In this context, investigations often focus not only on the presence of specific chemicals, but on whether a company’s marketing and branding created consumer expectations that are inconsistent with a product’s actual composition. State AGs continue to rely on consumer protection statutes to scrutinize sustainability, wellness, safety, and quality claims made to consumers. 

At the same time, requests for information regarding testing protocols and supply chain practices signal that enforcement risk may extend beyond finished products, with companies increasingly being held accountable for how they monitor chemical compliance throughout their supplier networks.

What Businesses Should Do Now 

This investigation offers several important lessons for companies in the apparel, consumer products, and wellness sectors:

• Evaluate marketing through an enforcement lens: Statements emphasizing health, sustainability, or safety may be scrutinized against internal testing data and compliance practices.
• Know what is in your products: State AGs are increasingly focused on whether companies can substantiate chemical safety claims with documentation, protocols, and supplier controls.
• Expect consumer protection statutes to drive enforcement: Even in the absence of new regulations, AGs continue to use deceptive practices laws to address emerging scientific and consumer concerns.
• Single‑state actions can set broader precedent: Investigations like this can attract attention from other states, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and regulators.

Looking Ahead

The Texas investigation into Lululemon reflects a broader shift toward state‑led oversight of chemical content and consumer transparency, particularly where products are marketed as aligning with health and wellness values. Companies should expect continued scrutiny of PFAS and other chemicals across a range of consumer goods, as well as closer examination of whether marketing narratives align with internal compliance realities

�鶹ֱ�� & Lardner LLP’s State Attorneys General Practice continues to monitor developments in PFAS enforcement, consumer protection investigations, and multistate regulatory trends affecting consumer‑facing companies.

For questions regarding this investigation or how state attorneys general enforcement trends may impact your organization, please contact a member of �鶹ֱ��’s State Attorneys General team.

�鶹ֱ�� & Lardner State Attorneys General Practice

�鶹ֱ��’s State Attorneys General Practice represents and advises companies facing investigations, enforcement actions, and policy initiatives brought by state attorneys general nationwide. Our team includes former senior state AG officials and experienced litigators who help clients navigate complex, multistate matters involving consumer protection, product safety, environmental and chemical regulation, data privacy, and government investigations.

We regularly assist clients with responding to CIDs, managing multistate risk, engaging strategically with attorneys general offices, and developing compliance and governance strategies aligned with evolving state enforcement priorities.