PFAS Observer
On April 13, 2026, the Texas Attorney General’s Office issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Lululemon USA Inc. based on the alleged presence of PFAS in the company’s apparel. According to Paxton’s announcement, the investigation is necessary to determine whether Lululemon engaged in deceptive trade practices by marketing itself as a health-conscious and sustainable brand and subsequently selling products containing PFAS. A positive determination could form the basis for future enforcement.
PFAS may be added to textiles, including those used in clothing, to impart the qualities of water- and stain-resistance.
In response to the CID, Lululemon stated that it phased out intentionally added PFAS in all its products in fiscal year 2023. Although the company outsources its manufacturing, it maintains a strict Restricted Substances List (RSL) consistent with the 2025 Apparel and Footwear International RSL Management (AFIRM) Group, caps total organic fluorine at 50 ppm, and takes steps to minimize any PFAS variants in its products by engaging in ongoing vendor audits and lab testing.
The Texas CID continues the trend of businesses, aside from those engaged in the manufacture of PFAS, becoming the subject of enforcement actions and litigation. More specifically, it may serve as a harbinger for similar actions against other clothing manufacturers. Furthermore, implicit in the complaint is an understanding that PFAS may be potentially harmful through dermal contact. This is notable since the initial wave of PFAS litigation in the second half of the last decade focused on harmful exposure through ingestion (e.g., potable water supplies impacted by PFAS).
All this may accentuate existing trends whereby companies investigate their supply chains for the potential presence of PFAS and seek certifications from supply chain partners that these chemicals are not present in their products. If they have not done so already, companies similarly situated to Lululemon, may wish to consider initiating such investigation, while those that have taken steps may wish to consider the adequacy of measures taken to death, as well as specific means (e.g., contractual indemnities, insurance, re-evaluating advertising claims) of potentially offsetting PFAS-related liabilities.