What Is the Lululemon Lawsuit?
The Lululemon lawsuit is a group of separate legal matters involving Lululemon Athletica Inc. and its subsidiaries, not a single case. Searchers use the phrase for several different things, so this page separates them.
The best-known matter is the one Lululemon started itself. Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. and Lululemon USA Inc. sued Costco Wholesale Corporation in federal court in California in June 2025 over alleged copies, or "dupes," of its clothing. Lululemon is the plaintiff there, not the defendant.
The cases that name Lululemon as a defendant are consumer suits. Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc. (E.D. Mich.) and Alsaady v. Lululemon USA Inc. (W.D. Wash.) are proposed class actions over tariff-related price increases. Cody v. Lululemon is a California suit over allegedly fictitious sale prices. A securities class action, Patel v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., is pending in New York.
Separately, the Texas attorney general opened a PFAS investigation in April 2026. It is not a lawsuit. The quotation below comes from the first-filed tariff class action, one part of the Lululemon litigation described here.
“This class action arises from Lululemon USA Inc.’s retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. This windfall is a direct result of Lululemon systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers.”
Source: Neuman et al. v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11029 (E.D. Mich.), Class Action Complaint, ECF No. 1 (filed March 27, 2026)
Why Are People Filing Lululemon Lawsuits?
People are filing Lululemon lawsuits because they allege Lululemon overcharged shoppers or misled them about tariffs, prices or its environmental record. Lululemon is also a plaintiff in its own suit against Costco, which is a different kind of dispute.
The tariff suits argue that Lululemon raised prices because of import duties and then kept the benefit when those duties were struck down. Public estimates put Lululemon's tariff bill near $240 million, and the complaints say it raised prices in response.
The pricing suit argues that Lululemon advertised discounts from regular prices it had not actually charged. The Texas investigation asks whether Lululemon's wellness and sustainability marketing was misleading if its apparel contained PFAS.
An earlier greenwashing class action over the company's "Be Planet" campaign was dismissed in February 2025. Lululemon disputes each consumer claim and denies using PFAS since its fiscal 2023 phase-out.
What Injuries Are Included in the Lululemon Lawsuit?
The injuries included in the Lululemon lawsuit are economic and regulatory rather than physical. This page found no personal-injury suit or class over Lululemon products. The five categories below each belong to a different case and a different party.
Tariff Price Pass-Through
Unjust enrichment is a legal claim that a defendant kept money or a benefit that, in fairness, belongs to someone else.
The two tariff class actions claim this harm. Shoppers allege they paid higher Lululemon prices because of tariffs that the Supreme Court later invalidated, while only Lululemon, as importer of record, can seek a government refund.
The Alsaady plaintiffs give concrete examples. Zeinab Alsaady allegedly bought three items at a Michigan store in May 2025 for $318.95, and Abraham Kazan allegedly bought four items at a New York store in November 2025 for $413.05. The complaint says Vietnam makes about 40% of Lululemon's products. These are allegations, and Lululemon says it will defend the case.
Fictitious Reference Pricing
A reference price is the higher "regular" price shown crossed out beside a sale price, and California law restricts advertising one unless it was the prevailing price in the prior three months.
Annette Cody's suit claims this harm. She alleges she bought Wunder Train High-Rise Tight leggings in April 2026 for $59, shown against a $98 strike-through price, and that the leggings had not sold at $98 since at least October 2025.
Cody seeks damages, restitution and an injunction, and she wants the case certified as a class action. No court ruling has been reported.
Greenwashing
Greenwashing is marketing that allegedly overstates a company's environmental benefits.
Consumers claimed this harm in Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., No. 1:24-cv-22651 (S.D. Fla.). The plaintiffs alleged that Lululemon's "Be Planet" campaign hid a growing environmental footprint, including greenhouse gas emissions they said had more than doubled since the campaign began in 2020.
Judge Beth Bloom dismissed the case in February 2025 because the plaintiffs did not tie any statement to a price premium or show a threat of future injury. The dismissal was without prejudice, but the court denied leave to amend.
PFAS Exposure Concerns
PFAS are a large group of man-made chemicals, often called forever chemicals, that resist breaking down in the environment and the body.
No private lawsuit over PFAS in Lululemon clothing has been identified, so this is a concern under investigation rather than a pleaded injury. The Texas attorney general says PFAS have been linked in some studies to hormone disruption, infertility and certain cancers.
Lululemon says it used PFAS only in durable water-repellent products, a small share of its range. Reporting on the investigation notes there is no direct evidence that wearing Lululemon leggings causes cancer.
Alleged Copying of Lululemon Designs
Trade dress is the overall look of a product that identifies its source under federal trademark law, and a design patent protects a product's ornamental appearance.
Lululemon claims this harm against Costco. Its complaint compares a $118 Scuba pullover with a Danskin half-zip pullover sold at Costco for $8, a $128 Define jacket with Jockey and Spyder yoga jackets at $22, and a $128 ABC pant with a Kirkland five-pocket pant at about $10 online.
Lululemon alleges that Costco profited from shopper confusion and that social media hashtags for "Lululemon dupes" helped sell the products. Costco had not responded to press requests when the complaint was reported.
Who Qualifies for the Lululemon Lawsuit?
You may qualify if:
- You bought a good from any Lululemon retail channel in the United States between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026, the period proposed in Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc.
- You bought a Lululemon item in California at a sale price shown against a higher crossed-out price, the practice challenged in Cody v. Lululemon.
- You bought Lululemon stock between December 8, 2023 and July 24, 2024, the period covered by the false-statement allegations in the Patel securities class action.
You may not qualify if:
- Your only concern is PFAS in leggings you own. No private PFAS lawsuit or class has been identified, and the Texas investigation has no claim form.
- You bought a Kirkland, Danskin, Jockey or Spyder item at Costco. Lululemon sued Costco, shoppers are not class members in that case, and no refund is offered.
- You bought Lululemon items secondhand or from a retailer other than Lululemon, since the proposed tariff class covers Lululemon retail channels.
No Lululemon class has been certified, so no one is yet a class member, and no claim form or deadline exists. Eligibility depends on where and when you bought, your state's law and the class definitions a court may later approve. Only a qualified attorney reviewing your records can confirm whether you have a claim.
What Is the Current Status of the Lululemon Lawsuit?
The current status of the Lululemon lawsuit is mixed, with no final outcome in any matter as of October 2026. Lululemon has settled part of the Costco case, the tariff and pricing class actions are at the pleading stage, and the Texas PFAS inquiry remains an investigation.
The entries below follow each proceeding separately, because they have different courts, parties and stages. Where this page could not confirm a development after a certain date, it says so.
Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Lululemon filed the case on June 27, 2025, after sending Costco a letter the previous November. It asserts trade dress, trademark and design patent infringement and a California unfair competition claim, and it asks for lost profits, a permanent injunction and a jury trial.
On February 27, 2026, Lululemon, Costco and manufacturer Jacques Moret Inc. filed a joint stipulation resolving infringement claims over Danskin and Jockey outerwear, according to Bloomberg Law. The deal came as Moret was pressing to cancel two of Lululemon's Scuba design patents, and it also resolved Moret's invalidation claims.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Central District of California |
| Case Number | 2:25-cv-05864 |
| Filed | June 27, 2025 |
| Plaintiffs | Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.; Lululemon USA Inc. |
| Defendant | Costco Wholesale Corporation (Jacques Moret Inc. joined the February 2026 stipulation) |
| Claims | Trade dress, trademark (SCUBA, TIDEWATER TEAL) and design patent infringement; California unfair competition |
| Current Stage | Partly settled; remaining claims reported pending |
The Fashion Law's case tracker reports that claims over Kirkland pants and the Spyder yoga jacket were dismissed with prejudice on May 11, 2026, leaving claims over a men's zip-up jacket pending. CourtListener's docket shows a last known filing on the same date. This page could not confirm later events, and sources conflict on any trial date, so it states none.
Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc.
Joshua Neuman, Jessica Kelley, Bobby Kelley and Ronald K. Buckman III filed this first tariff class action on March 27, 2026, and served it on March 31. They plead quasi-contract or unjust enrichment and money had and received, and they ask for restitution or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Lululemon recovers.
The complaint proposes a class of all persons in the United States who bought any good subject to IEEPA tariffs from any Lululemon retail channel from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026. It alleges Lululemon sued in the Court of International Trade on January 8, 2026 to recover the duties.
Judge Stephen J. Murphy III signed a stipulated order on June 17, 2026 letting plaintiffs file an amended complaint by September 15, 2026, with Lululemon to respond by October 15, 2026. This page has not seen the later filings.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan |
| Case Number | 2:26-cv-11029 |
| Judge | Judge Stephen J. Murphy III |
| Filed | March 27, 2026 |
| Plaintiffs | Joshua Neuman, Jessica Kelley, Bobby Kelley, Ronald K. Buckman III |
| Defendant | Lululemon USA Inc. |
| Plaintiffs' Counsel | Mantese Honigman, P.C. |
| Current Stage | Amended complaint and response deadlines set for September and October 2026 |
Alsaady v. Lululemon USA Inc.
Zeinab Alsaady and Abraham Kazan filed this related tariff class action on June 30, 2026. Hagens Berman, with The Miller Law Firm, says Lululemon raised prices on imported goods beginning in February 2025 and has made no commitment to return any refund to shoppers.
The complaint adds consumer-protection claims under Washington, Michigan and New York law to the equitable claims. Lululemon told investors it intends to defend both tariff suits, and neither court has certified a class.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington |
| Case Number | 3:26-cv-05708 |
| Judge | Judge David W. Christel |
| Filed | June 30, 2026 |
| Plaintiffs | Zeinab Alsaady, Abraham Kazan |
| Defendant | Lululemon USA Inc. |
| Plaintiffs' Counsel | Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; The Miller Law Firm P.C. |
| Current Stage | Early pleadings, no class certified |
Cody v. Lululemon
Annette Cody sued in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 20, 2026, alleging violations of California consumer protection law. Courthouse News and trade outlets report the case, and this page found no docket or ruling to add.
| Court | Los Angeles County Superior Court, California |
| Filed | July 20, 2026 |
| Plaintiff | Annette Cody |
| Defendant | Lululemon |
| Claims | California consumer protection law over reference pricing |
| Current Stage | Early; seeking class status, no ruling reported |
Texas Attorney General PFAS investigation
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on April 13, 2026 that his office issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Lululemon USA Inc. The inquiry covers whether the company's activewear contains PFAS and whether its marketing misled customers, and it will review Lululemon's restricted substances list, testing protocols and supply chain.
Lululemon says it is cooperating and providing the requested documents. A Civil Investigative Demand compels documents before any lawsuit, and none has been reported.
| Agency | Texas Office of the Attorney General |
| Announced | April 13, 2026 |
| Directed To | Lululemon USA Inc. |
| Subject | PFAS in apparel and sustainability marketing |
| Current Stage | Active investigation, no lawsuit filed |
Patel v. Lululemon Athletica Inc.
Investors filed this securities class action on August 8, 2024, alleging false and misleading statements about Lululemon's business, products and inventory between December 8, 2023 and July 24, 2024. Lululemon's quarterly report says the court granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss on March 31, 2026.
Six stockholder derivative suits rest on the same allegations. They were consolidated as In re lululemon athletica inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation and stayed pending the securities case, under a stipulation the court so ordered on May 18, 2026.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Case Number | 1:24-cv-06033 |
| Filed | August 8, 2024 |
| Defendants | Lululemon Athletica Inc. and certain officers |
| Claims | Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) |
| Current Stage | Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part, March 31, 2026 |
Has Lululemon Settled the Costco Lawsuit?
Yes, in part. Lululemon has settled parts of the Costco lawsuit on undisclosed terms, but it has not settled any consumer class action.
No class settlement exists, no claim form is open and no payout amount has been set for any Lululemon consumer case. Websites that list a Lululemon payout, eligibility check or claim deadline are not backed by a court docket or settlement administrator that this page could find. What any shopper could recover depends on the facts, the state and a qualified attorney's review.
Money from the Costco case would go to Lululemon, not to shoppers. The case is a business dispute over designs, so no refund, claim process or class payout comes from it.
The tariff plaintiffs ask for restitution of the overcharges or a proportionate share of any refunds. Lululemon's quarterly report says it received $134.5 million of IEEPA tariff refunds in its second quarter of 2026 plus $4.1 million of interest. That figure is not an amount owed to shoppers, and no court has ordered Lululemon to pass any of it on.
The Texas PFAS investigation has produced no settlement or penalty. A Civil Investigative Demand can precede a lawsuit or a negotiated resolution, but neither has been reported.
Lululemon Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
The latest Lululemon lawsuit updates, with case status, show the Costco case partly settled, two tariff class actions in early pleadings and the Texas PFAS investigation still open as of October 2026. Every dated development below was confirmed against a court filing, a company filing or a news report.
Lululemon Lawsuit Timeline
Investors sue Lululemon over the see-through yoga pants recall
Investors filed a securities class action against Lululemon Athletica in the Southern District of New York after its shares fell 17% on June 10, 2013. They alleged Lululemon hid quality defects in its Luon yoga pants, which it had recalled in March. This older case is separate from the Patel securities suit.
Lululemon launches its Be Planet campaign
Lululemon launched Be Planet in October 2020, promising that 100% of its products would include sustainable materials and end-of-use solutions by 2030. The campaign later became the target of the Gyani greenwashing suit.
Canada's Competition Bureau opens an inquiry into Lululemon's environmental claims
The Competition Bureau of Canada opened a formal investigation into Lululemon's environmental marketing after a complaint by stand.earth, Kelley Drye reported. This page did not confirm the outcome.
Amandeep Gyani files the Be Planet greenwashing class action in Florida
Amandeep Gyani sued Lululemon Athletica in the Southern District of Florida, alleging the Be Planet campaign misled consumers about the company's environmental impact. The case later became Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., No. 1:24-cv-22651.
Investors file the Patel securities class action in New York
Lululemon Athletica and certain officers were named in Patel v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., No. 1:24-cv-06033, in the Southern District of New York. The case alleges false statements between December 8, 2023 and July 24, 2024.
First stockholder derivative suit follows the securities case
Stockholders began filing derivative complaints against Lululemon directors and officers in the Southern District of New York on November 4, 2024. Six were filed in all, based largely on the Patel allegations.
Judge Bloom dismisses the Be Planet greenwashing case
Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern District of Florida dismissed Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica Inc. for lack of standing, finding the plaintiffs did not tie Lululemon's statements to a price premium. The dismissal was without prejudice, and leave to amend was denied.
Lululemon sues Costco over alleged dupes
Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. and Lululemon USA Inc. sued Costco Wholesale Corporation in the Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv-05864. The complaint targets lookalikes of the Scuba hoodie, Define jacket and ABC pant.
Court consolidates the Lululemon derivative suits
The Southern District of New York consolidated Lululemon's stockholder derivative actions under the caption In re lululemon athletica inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 1:24-cv-08507.
Lululemon sues the United States to recover IEEPA tariffs
Lululemon USA Inc. filed Lululemon USA Inc. v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-00465, in the Court of International Trade, seeking a refund of the IEEPA tariffs it had paid, according to the Neuman complaint.
Supreme Court invalidates the IEEPA tariffs
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. The ruling set up the tariff refund claims that Lululemon and the consumer class actions both pursue.
Lululemon, Costco and Jacques Moret settle Danskin and Jockey claims
Lululemon, Costco Wholesale Corporation and Jacques Moret Inc. filed a joint stipulation in the Central District of California resolving infringement claims over Danskin and Jockey outerwear. The deal also resolved Moret's bid to invalidate two Lululemon Scuba design patents.
Joshua Neuman and others file the first tariff class action
Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 2:26-cv-11029, was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan by Mantese Honigman, P.C. It proposes a nationwide class of Lululemon buyers from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026.
Court trims the Patel securities class action
The Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Lululemon's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Patel v. Lululemon Athletica Inc. The securities case continues.
Texas attorney general opens a PFAS investigation into Lululemon
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Lululemon USA Inc. over possible PFAS in its activewear and its sustainability marketing. Lululemon said it phased out PFAS in fiscal 2023 and is cooperating.
Kirkland pants and Spyder jacket claims reported dismissed in the Costco case
The Fashion Law reported that Lululemon's claims over the Kirkland Performance Pants and the Spyder Women's Yoga Jacket were dismissed with prejudice on May 11, 2026 in Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Claims over a men's zip-up jacket remained pending.
Court stays the Lululemon derivative suits
The Southern District of New York so-ordered a stipulation staying In re lululemon athletica inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation until the Patel securities class action is resolved.
Judge Murphy sets amended-complaint deadlines in Neuman
Judge Stephen J. Murphy III so-ordered a stipulation in Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc. letting plaintiffs file an amended complaint by September 15, 2026. Lululemon USA Inc. was to answer, move or otherwise respond by October 15, 2026.
Hagens Berman files the Alsaady tariff class action in Washington
Alsaady v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 3:26-cv-05708, was filed in the Western District of Washington by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and The Miller Law Firm P.C. It adds consumer-protection claims under Washington, Michigan and New York law.
Annette Cody sues Lululemon over phantom discounts
Annette Cody filed Cody v. Lululemon in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging the company advertised fictitious regular prices. She seeks damages, restitution, an injunction and class status.
Lululemon reports receiving $134.5 million in IEEPA tariff refunds
In its quarterly report for the period ended August 2, 2026, Lululemon athletica inc. said it received $134.5 million of IEEPA tariff refunds and $4.1 million of interest in its second quarter. It said it intends to defend both tariff class actions.
Law firms announce investor investigations after Lululemon's share drop
Pomerantz and other law firms announced investigations on behalf of Lululemon Athletica Inc. investors after the shares fell 17.38% on September 4, 2026, according to their press releases. An announced investigation is not a filed lawsuit, and this page found no new securities complaint.
How to File a Lululemon Lawsuit
Here are the 6 steps to file a Lululemon lawsuit.
- Gather your purchase records: Collect order confirmations, receipts and your Lululemon account purchase history, since the tariff and pricing claims depend on what you bought and when.
- Save pricing evidence: Take dated screenshots of any crossed-out regular price beside a sale price, because the pricing claim turns on what the item actually sold for in the prior three months.
- Check the proposed class periods: Compare your purchase dates with the February 1, 2025 to February 24, 2026 period proposed in Neuman, and with your state's law for pricing claims.
- Check your deadlines: Each state sets its own filing deadline for consumer claims, and an attorney can tell you whether yours has run.
- Consult a consumer class-action attorney: Ask whether you can join a proposed class, wait for notice if one is certified, or have an individual claim worth pursuing.
- Be cautious with claim websites: Pages that advertise a Lululemon PFAS or Costco payout are not backed by any court docket or settlement notice this page could find.
Answer a few questions and a case reviewer will follow up. Free, no obligation.
A case reviewer will follow up soon.
What Evidence Do You Need for a Lululemon Lawsuit?
The evidence you need for a Lululemon lawsuit is mainly proof of what you bought, when you bought it and what you paid. These cases are about price and marketing, so health records are not part of any current Lululemon suit.
For the tariff claims, useful records are order confirmations, receipts and the account history showing purchases between February 2025 and February 2026. For the pricing claim, dated screenshots of the listed regular price and the sale price matter most.
Investors in the securities case would instead need brokerage statements showing share purchases and sales. An attorney can tell which records fit which case.
What Has Lululemon Said About the Tariff, PFAS and Pricing Claims?
Lululemon has said it raised prices because of tariffs, phased out PFAS in fiscal 2023, and will defend the pricing claims. The Neuman complaint alleges the company's chief financial officer announced price increases in June 2025 and that its chief executive confirmed them in a September 2025 CNBC interview.
On PFAS, Lululemon says the chemicals were used in durable water-repellent products, a small share of its range, and that it requires vendors to test for restricted substances through third-party agencies. The company has not conceded wrongdoing in any consumer matter.
| Date | Source | What it said or did |
|---|---|---|
| June 2025 | Lululemon chief financial officer, as alleged in Neuman | Announced the company would raise prices in response to tariffs |
| September 2025 | Lululemon chief executive, as alleged in Neuman | Confirmed the price increases in a CNBC interview |
| January 8, 2026 | Court of International Trade, No. 1:26-cv-00465 | Lululemon USA Inc. sued the United States to recover IEEPA tariffs |
| February 20, 2026 | U.S. Supreme Court | Invalidated the IEEPA tariffs in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump |
| Fiscal 2023 | Lululemon statement | Says it phased out PFAS from water-repellent products |
In its quarterly report, Lululemon said it believes the outcome of its legal proceedings is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect, while noting that litigation is inherently uncertain. Allegations in a complaint are not findings, and no court has ruled on the tariff or pricing claims.
How Does the Lululemon Lawsuit Compare to Other Lululemon Lawsuits?
The Lululemon lawsuit on this page differs from other Lululemon and Costco lawsuits in subject, court and claimant group. Several share a name and are easy to confuse with the cases above.
| Case | Subject | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Lululemon v. Costco versus consumer suits against Costco | Lululemon is the plaintiff in the dupes case, while shoppers sue Costco over unrelated issues such as emails and rotisserie chicken | Different cases with different parties, no shared class |
| 2013 see-through yoga pants investor suit (S.D.N.Y.) | Investors alleged Lululemon hid quality defects after a recall of black Luon pants | Older, separate securities case, not the Patel suit |
| Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica Inc. (S.D. Fla.) | Be Planet greenwashing class action | Dismissed in February 2025, described above |
| Competition Bureau of Canada inquiry | Environmental marketing claims, opened after a stand.earth complaint | Opened in 2024, outcome not confirmed by this page |
| Pearson v. Nike (federal court, Los Angeles) | Similar reference-price theory against Nike, filed July 21, 2026 | Not a Lululemon case |
| Law firm investor investigations | Share price drop of 17.38% on September 4, 2026 | Announced October 2026, not filed lawsuits |
People searching for a Lululemon PFAS lawsuit usually mean the Texas investigation, and people searching for a Lululemon Costco lawsuit mean the dupes case. Neither is the tariff class action, which is the case most likely to involve ordinary Lululemon shoppers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Lululemon lawsuit about?
The Lululemon lawsuit is about several separate matters: Lululemon's trade dress suit against Costco, two proposed class actions over tariff-related price increases, a California pricing suit and a Texas PFAS investigation. No single case is the Lululemon lawsuit.
Is there a Lululemon class action lawsuit?
There is a Lululemon class action lawsuit in proposed form only. Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc. and Alsaady v. Lululemon USA Inc. seek classes over tariff pricing, and Cody v. Lululemon seeks class status, but no court has certified any class.
Did Lululemon win the lawsuit against Costco?
Lululemon has not won the lawsuit against Costco outright. It settled Danskin and Jockey claims in February 2026 on undisclosed terms, and sources report other claims dismissed with prejudice in May 2026, leaving a men's jacket claim pending.
Is there a Lululemon PFAS lawsuit?
There is no Lululemon PFAS lawsuit that this page could confirm. The Texas attorney general issued a Civil Investigative Demand in April 2026, and Lululemon says it phased out PFAS in fiscal 2023.
How do I join the Lululemon class action lawsuit?
You cannot yet join a certified Lululemon class action lawsuit, because none exists and no claim form is open. The proposed tariff class covers Lululemon purchases from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026, and an attorney can explain your options.
Does the Lululemon Costco lawsuit give shoppers a refund?
The Lululemon Costco lawsuit does not give shoppers a refund. Lululemon is the plaintiff and seeks damages and an injunction against Costco, so Costco shoppers are not class members.