Lululemon’s Texas PFAS probe ends with three-year supplier deal

By Grace Kim

Lululemon’s three-year compliance agreement with Texas ends an April investigation into PFAS in its activewear and carries no financial penalty. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the deal Thursday, saying the Vancouver-based company signed an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance without admitting wrongdoing or liability.

Texas said the possible presence of so-called “forever chemicals” could undercut Lululemon’s wellness-focused messaging and mislead consumers. The settlement pairs those concerns with supplier documentation, independent testing and continued state oversight.

What did the review find?

Texas did not identify PFAS in Lululemon’s products or materials during its review. Lululemon separately said it phased out PFAS in 2023 and does not use the substances in its products, a company assertion rather than a new state testing finding.

The company also supplied requested documentation, including third-party laboratory testing reports. In a statement published on its website, Lululemon said: “The health and safety of Lululemon guests is the company’s top priority, and Lululemon is confident in the standards and processes it has in place. Lululemon does not use PFAS in its products.”

What must suppliers document?

The three-year agreement requires Lululemon to maintain rigorous chemical-safety standards and oversee materials used in its products. Vendors must show compliance with the brand’s Restricted Substances List through independent laboratory testing or valid third-party certifications.

• Verify the validity of each certification used to support vendor compliance.
• Require additional testing when a certification expires.
• Take corrective action that the agreement describes as commercially reasonable when a vendor does not comply.

These duties turn chemical compliance into a documentation workflow for sourcing teams. A supplier file must connect test reports or certifications to relevant materials, and expired evidence triggers another test rather than continued acceptance.

Does the deal concede a violation?

The agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing or liability and imposes no financial penalty. The review result and settlement duties answer different questions: Texas did not identify PFAS during its review, while the agreement sets controls for what Lululemon and its vendors must document next.

That leaves Lululemon’s 2023 phaseout and third-party laboratory reports as the company’s submitted evidence, not a finding of liability. Paxton’s office will continue monitoring and ensure what he described as adequate material testing, so closure does not remove future compliance exposure.

What stays under scrutiny?

Paxton said the agreement would make Lululemon accountable for enforcing its chemical-safety standards and provide additional protections for Texans against potentially harmful chemicals. The three-year settlement therefore ends the probe without ending Paxton’s oversight role.

Paxton, whose U.S. Senate campaign has closely aligned with the Make America Healthy Again movement, said: “I will not allow corporations to put the health and safety of Texans at risk by using potentially harmful chemicals in their clothing.”

His office is currently investigating Hanes and Fruit of the Loom over the potential presence of toxic chemicals in materials used in children’s underwear. The separate cases show that the Lululemon agreement does not end Texas’s broader scrutiny of chemicals in clothing.

For Lululemon sourcing teams, the decision is to make the Restricted Substances List evidence chain operational across every activewear vendor. Teams need certificate owners, expiry checks, renewal tests and a documented corrective-action path.

The company remains responsible for vendor evidence throughout the three-year term. Compliance will therefore be verified through documents and repeat laboratory work, not accepted through a corporate assurance alone.