PFAS: Texas Opens Investigation Into Lulumon

Texas is investigating Lulumon’s use of PFAS in some of its clothing – image courtesy of Vecteezy.com.

New investigations are opening in the fight against PFAS. These ‘forever chemicals’ are turning up in clothing and other products. If you assumed recent efforts to clean PFAS from the water supply made you safer, the wider use of these chemicals shows the problem reaches far beyond our drinking water. Let’s take a look.

Texas Investigates PFAS in Lulumon Clothing

Multiple news outlets report that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched a consumer‑protection probe to determine whether Lululemon’s athletic apparel contains PFAS and whether its marketing misled customers about product safety. Lululemon says it used PFAS in only a small percentage of its durable water‑repellent items and fully phased them out by FY23/early 2024. The company says it now requires third‑party testing to confirm ongoing compliance.

Several other companies and industries are currently under investigation or legal scrutiny for PFAS, not just Lululemon. The Lululemon probe is part of a much broader national and global regulatory push targeting PFAS in consumer products, manufacturing, and supply chains.

Investigations And Lawsuits Across Multiple Industries

Regulators are targeting PFAS across multiple sectors, and many companies are facing investigations or lawsuits. They have been aggressively pursuing chemical companies that have produced PFAS for decades. Sources note that PFAS-related litigation has increased across many sectors, particularly the chemicals sector.

Chemical companies widely known to be under investigation or litigation include:

3M (major PFAS producer; multiple lawsuits nationwide)
DuPont / Chemours / Corteva (spin-offs tied to legacy PFAS production)
BASF (involved in PFAS-related settlements)
Solvay (investigated and fined in multiple jurisdictions)

Apparel & Consumer Goods Companies (Growing Scrutiny):

Based on all available reporting to date, investigators have named Lululemon as the only apparel company currently under an active state investigation for forever chemicals.

State‑level enforcement is expanding into the apparel sector, and the entire sector is facing tighter scrutiny. This means more brands may face investigations in the future — but none are named yet.
Regulators are responding to:
- PFAS are found in waterproof or stain‑resistant fabrics
- Marketing claims that may mislead consumers
- Health concerns (endocrine disruption, infertility, cancer)
It is believed that:
- PFAS are widely used across the apparel industry
- Many companies face lawsuits over PFAS in consumer products

Industries Facing Heightened Scrutiny

Texas is investigating Lulumon for PFAS-related issues – image courtesy of Vecteezy.com.

Based on the reporting, regulators are expanding investigations across:

Consumer Products

Cookware
Carpets
Waterproof clothing
Cosmetics
Food packaging

Companies have used these “forever chemicals” in their products since the 1940s.

Manufacturing & Industrial Sectors

Chemical plants
Firefighting foam manufacturers (AFFF)
Electronics
Automotive coatings

Water Utilities

Many states are investigating contamination in public water systems. This was the topic of one of my recent articles, entitled “What Are PFAS And Why Should You Care?”

The Catholic View

PFAS were first formally linked to cancer in humans in the early 2010s, and the evidence has strengthened steadily since then. Lulumon only phased them out of production by FY23/early 2024. That is ~10 years where Lulumon kept using these chemicals after the link to cancer was established. All available reporting shows Lululemon denied current PFAS use, emphasized compliance, and stated it had already phased PFAS out, but did not issue any consumer warnings about past PFAS‑treated items. If true, this is unconscionable and completely unacceptable. Putting profits and covering your rear while people are being exposed to chemicals that are known to be harmful warrants arrest and criminal charges against the corporate executives, in my view.

Reports describe the action as a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) issued under Texas consumer‑protection law, which is a civil enforcement framework — not a criminal one. The legal basis is consumer‑protection law — a civil statute. Criminal investigations are already happening — but not in the apparel sector as yet.

What Would Jesus Do?

Morally, if the courts find this to be true, it is wrong on many levels. Jesus would confront any company that exposes people to unnecessary risks and hides the truth about the safety of its products. He consistently condemns harm, deception, and the exploitation of people who trust those in positions of authority.

Jesus repeatedly: