As headlines regarding PFAS (or so-called “forever chemicals”) around the country have accelerated, on April 13, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that his office has opened an investigation into Lululemon over the possibility of PFAS being present in their athletic gear.
The Investigation
The scope of the attorney general’s investigation, as stated, is to: (1) examine whether athletic apparel from Lululemon “contains PFAS or ‘forever chemicals’ that their health-conscious customers would not expect based on the brand’s marketing[,]” and (2) “review the company’s Restricted Substances List, testing protocols, and supply chain practices to determine whether Lululemon’s products comply with its stated safety standards.” Paxton framed the matter as a consumer protection issue, warning that companies will be held accountable if they sell potentially harmful materials under the guise of wellness or sustainability.
The press release did not identify a specific law which may have been violated or the impetus for an investigation into Lululemon. However, the Texas attorney general’s press release may signal a general attitude shift regarding the presence of potentially “toxic” substances in consumer products.
Lululemon responded to the press release by stating that it does not use PFAS in its products currently. Lululemon highlighted that its Restricted Substance List, which outlines its standards for chemicals in products, is regularly monitored and updated annually to “incorporate changes in manufacturing chemistry, government regulations, industry best practices, and scientific knowledge.” Finally, Lululemon stated that it requires all vendors to regularly conduct testing for restricted substances by credible third-party agencies, “to help prevent the unintentional reintroduction of PFAS into our products.”
For businesses and claims professionals, the investigation is less about leggings and more about trajectory. Even in states that have historically taken a business-friendly approach to regulation, this action suggests increasing skepticism toward safety claims tied to consumer products. Whether or not enforcement follows the Texas announcement, this is another reminder that preparedness is key in the face of wider regulatory attention.
About the Authors:
Margo Wright is an associate at Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP. margo.wright@fmglaw.com
Joshua G. Ferguson is a partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP. joshua.ferguson@fmglaw.com
Kevin G. Kenneally is a partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP. kevin.kenneally@fmglaw.com
Kevin M. Ringel is a partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP. kevin.ringel@fmglaw.com
Charlotte J. Meltzer is an associate at Freeman Mathis & Gary LLP. charlotte.meltzer@fmglaw.com