HONG KONG, CHINA – 2026/09/24: Pedestrians walk past a Canadian athletic apparel retailer Lululemon store at Hong Kong International Airport. (Photo by Alex Tai/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Read more Who sent transgender mailers to Texas kids? West Texas DA opens criminal investigation
The Texas Attorney General’s Office on Thursday announced that a settlement has been reached between the state and activewear company, Lululemon, over the potential presence of toxic chemicals in their products.
As part of the agreement, the company will enforce chemical safety standards across its supply chain, including independent lab testing or valid third-party certifications for materials.
Texas investigates Lululemon over ‘forever chemicals’
The backstory:
Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the state was investigating Lululemon in April over concerns the company misled consumers about product safety and the possible presence of PFAs or “forever chemicals.”
The other side:
Lululemon responded to the initial probe, stating they had phased out any use of PFAs in 2023 and said it had only been used in a small number of water-repellent products.
Read more Fort Bend County tax assessor, 2 subordinates indicted for alleged wire fraud, theft
On Thursday, the company said the agreement “reiterates how the company already operates.”
What they’re saying:
“As part of the Attorney General’s Office review, lululemon provided the Office with the requested documentation, including third-party laboratory testing reports, and the State did not identify “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances” (PFAS) in lululemon products and materials,” the company said in a statement. “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.”
The agreement between Lululemon and the attorney general’s office will remain in place for three years.
Read more Election officials clarify ballot laws after text message confuses Brazoria County voters