Lululemon Under Probe for 'Forever Chemicals' That Concentrate in the Crotch Region of Leggings and Never Leave Your Body

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched a formal consumer protection investigation into Lululemon, alleging the athleisure giant may have deceived health-conscious shoppers about the presence of toxic synthetic chemicals in its activewear.

On 13 April 2026, Paxton's office issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Lululemon USA Inc., a legal instrument that compels a company to hand over documents and data before any formal lawsuit is filed. The probe centres on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, collectively known as PFAS or 'forever chemicals,' a class of synthetic compounds that do not break down in the human body or the natural environment.

Lululemon flatly denies the premise of the probe. In a statement provided to multiple newsrooms, the company said it had fully phased out PFAS by early 2024, limiting any prior use to durable water-repellent products, which it described as a small fraction of its overall range.

What Paxton's Civil Investigative Demand Requires of Lululemon

A Civil Investigative Demand carries the same legal force as a subpoena. Paxton's office has directed Lululemon to hand over its Restricted Substances List, testing protocols, and supply chain documentation, allowing investigators to assess whether the company's internal safety practices match its public-facing sustainability claims. Scrutiny will also extend to the brand's marketing language, which consistently frames its products around wellness, performance, and environmental responsibility.

'Americans should not have to worry if they are being deceived when trying to make healthy choices for themselves and their families,' Paxton said in a statement published by his office.

'I will not allow any corporation to sell harmful, toxic materials to consumers at a premium price under the guise of wellness and sustainability. If Lululemon has violated Texas law, it will be held accountable.' The investigation remains active and no formal charges have been filed.

Lululemon told Newsweek it was cooperating fully. 'We are aware of the inquiry from the Texas Office of the Attorney General and are cooperating by providing the requested documentation,' a company spokesperson said. 'The health and safety of our guests is paramount, and our products meet or exceed global regulatory, safety, and quality standards. We require all our vendors to regularly conduct testing for restricted substances, including PFAS, by credible third-party agencies to confirm ongoing compliance.'

Prior Independent Testing Found Fluorine Concentrated in Legging Crotch Areas

The concern over PFAS in activewear is not new. In 2022, environmental wellness publication Mamavation partnered with Environmental Health News to send 32 pairs of workout leggings and yoga pants, purchased from retailers including Amazon and Nordstrom, to an EPA-certified laboratory. Each pair was tested specifically at the crotch area for organic fluorine, which serves as a reliable indicator of PFAS presence. The findings showed 25 per cent of tested garments had detectable fluorine levels, ranging from 10 to 284 parts per million.

Crucially, the crotch region was consistently identified as the location with the highest concentration of detectable organic fluorine across multiple garments. Testing a Lululemon Align Highrise pant returned a reading of 32 parts per million. Researchers noted the pattern suggested an intentional fabric treatment rather than accidental contamination, though the mechanism was not definitively confirmed.

'While we know that PFAS can be absorbed through the skin, we don't have much information about how much would be transferred from activewear products. It's unlikely to be zero,' Pete Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, told Mamavation at the time.

The Environmental Working Group noted in its review of the same data that, because many PFAS compounds accumulate in the body, repeated wearing of PFAS-coated clothing may increase health risks over time. No standardised regulatory threshold for PFAS in textiles currently exists in the United States, which has made enforcement difficult and left consumers largely reliant on voluntary brand disclosures.

Health Risks Linked to PFAS and the Regulatory Push to Restrict Them

PFAS are a family of more than 10,000 synthetic compounds that have been used in consumer products since the 1940s. Their strength derives from an exceptionally stable carbon-fluorine bond that resists heat, water, oil, and biological degradation. 'They persist in the environment for decades or longer,' Yale School of Public Health epidemiology chair Vasilis Vasiliou explained, adding that this persistence is precisely what makes them a public health concern.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that most Americans already have measurable PFAS levels in their blood. Research has linked prolonged exposure to endocrine disruption, reduced immune response, reproductive harm, liver enzyme changes, and elevated risks of certain cancers, including kidney and testicular cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency finalised its first enforceable national drinking-water limits for PFAS in April 2024, a landmark regulatory step that arrived decades after the chemicals became pervasive in consumer goods.

At the state level, California introduced legislation in January 2025 banning the manufacture and distribution of products intentionally containing PFAS, a prohibition that includes activewear and takes full effect in 2028. Seven other states have PFAS textile restrictions taking effect in 2026. Texas's probe against Lululemon expands this map, framing the issue as one of consumer deception rather than regulatory non-compliance alone. Paxton's office also pursued a separate lawsuit against 3M and DuPont in 2024 over alleged decades-long misrepresentations about the safety of PFAS in household products including Teflon and Scotchgard.

A label that promises health on the outside means nothing if the fabric tells a different story underneath.