Lululemon Greenwashing Lawsuit: The 'Be Planet' Case

The Claim

Lululemon, the athletic-apparel brand, ran a sustainability campaign called “Be Planet,” promoting itself as committed to making products that are “better” for the environment. A class-action lawsuit accused the company of “greenwashing” — conveying an eco-friendly image that, the plaintiffs argued, clashed with reality, pointing to the company’s growing greenhouse-gas emissions, landfill waste and release of microplastics from synthetic fabrics. The suit claimed these marketing messages were deceptive to consumers who wanted to buy from an environmentally responsible brand.

Greenwashing claims are a rising category of consumer litigation as shoppers increasingly weigh sustainability — and regulators scrutinize vague ‘green’ marketing.

Why It Was Dismissed

In early 2025, a court dismissed the case — but the reason matters. The dismissal was based on “standing,” a threshold legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete, personal injury, rather than on a ruling that Lululemon’s environmental claims were truthful. The court essentially found the plaintiffs had not adequately tied the general marketing statements to a specific product they bought and a concrete harm they suffered. That is a procedural loss, not a vindication of the marketing, and it leaves the underlying greenwashing question legally unresolved.

The distinction is important: “dismissed for lack of standing” is not the same as “the claims are false.”

What Consumers Should Know

If sustainability influences your purchases, be skeptical of broad, feel-good slogans like “good for the planet,” which are hard to verify, and look instead for specific, measurable claims and independent certifications. The Lululemon case also shows a recurring hurdle in consumer litigation: even a plausible-sounding claim can fail on technical grounds like standing, without the court ever deciding whether the marketing was actually misleading.