Sheer Leggings, Again: Lululemon’s Recurring Challenge
It’s 2026, and Lululemon is once again managing a situation that sounds all too familiar.
The new activewear line by the company, designated as ‘Get Low’, encountered customer complaints even before its official release. Leggings were reported to be too sheer under natural light by customers from North America and Asia. The issue was quickly magnified by social media, where try-on videos and reviews were initiating critical discussions about the product’s quality.
Lululemon suspended online sales of the product in North America within days. The company’s press department confirmed the action to Reuters on January 20, 2026, citing guest response as the reason for the decision. The leggings are still being sold in certain physical stores, and a formal recall has not been announced.
It wasn’t just consumers taking note.
A Founder Speaks: Chip Wilson’s Comments Resurface
In an interview with Forbes, Chip Wilson, the vocal founder of Lululemon, did not hold back with his criticism. He referred to the leggings as “the lowest point” for the brand, even going so far as to call the article “disgraceful”. Wilson contended that the firm had lost its way by forsaking its original values of performance design.
Wilson’s comments quickly made headlines—not just because of their content but because of his fraught history with the company. His departure from active leadership in 2015 followed a separate sheer leggings scandal in 2013, when Lululemon was forced to recall 17% of its black yoga pants due to opacity issues. That incident led to a reported US$60 million loss in revenue.
While Wilson’s opinions are no longer aligned with corporate leadership, he remains one of Lululemon’s largest individual shareholders. His voice, though unofficial, carries significance.
Material Failures and Market Impact
The current issue centres on the “Get Low” leggings’ material. Customers reported that the fabric appeared fine in packaging but became semi-transparent during use. For a brand that positions itself at the intersection of fashion and functionality, such a flaw undermines credibility.
Different locations have different prices for the Get Low leggings. In the US, the price of new technical leggings has gone as high as US$148 in 2026, while international prices are still in the premium range set by Lululemon. Consumers are expecting nothing less than comfort, coverage, and durability at this price point. There should be no transparency—in fact, especially not that which is unintended.
The market response was instant. Lululemon’s stock price dropped by 6.5% on January 20, 2026, after the online sales ban was made public. This plunge put more pressure on a share price that was already down nearly 50% in the last year, which was a sign of investors’ concerns. The company has not yet officially recalled them, nor has it said that the leggings will come back with changes in design.
Not Just a Product Problem
In case a global brand regularly experiences problems with a specific product category, the questions will be raised regarding not only the design but also the governance. Are the internal quality controls being carried out with the utmost thoroughness? Is the management so engrossed in the expansion and new markets that it cannot ensure that the core product range is of good quality?
So far, there is no sign of a wider recall or a manufacturing error; however, the lack of clarity has opened the door to criticism. In the present cycle, reactive decisions such as stopping sales only after public outrage has occurred can bring about the faster loss of brand trust than that which can be caused by the original mistake.
For Lululemon, whose international sales have been growing by more than thirty percent every year on average since 2020, it is not merely a local problem. The company is currently present in 17 countries and has plans for a larger market share in Asia and Europe. Mistakes in product quality in a digital-first environment can be heard worldwide within hours.
Strategic Identity Under Scrutiny
Wilson’s disapproval goes beyond leggings only. His comments come during a heightened proxy struggle. Wilson put forward three directors for Lululemon’s board in December 2025 and January 2026, claiming the timeframe of the current leadership does not have enough creative and product experience. He had sufficiently shown his reluctance about the company’s takeover of inclusive sizing and lifestyle branding. To him, the brand has moved from serving a main group of sports consumers to pursuing political correctness.
This framing, unsurprisingly, has met with pushback.
In a statement originally issued in January 2024 and still cited as the company’s position, Lululemon responded:
“Chip Wilson does not speak for Lululemon, and his views do not reflect the values or beliefs of the company today.”
Yet the underlying issue persists: as brands grow, how do they expand audiences without diluting their origin story?
Global brands across sectors face this same challenge. Expanding product lines while maintaining identity. Serving broader demographics while preserving technical performance. Delivering consistent quality at scale without alienating legacy users.
For Lululemon, the balancing act between performance and accessibility is under public review.
The Timing Factor
The timing of the product release also bewildered the market. January is the time of the year when fitness retail enjoys the highest sales volume—thanks to New Year resolutions and health-orientated advertising campaigns.
A failed launch within this period can have much worse consequences, especially considering the fact that a negative first impression can spread like wildfire. Many people shared images showing a comparison between the Get Low leggings and other Lululemon products from the past, pointing out the decline in touch, fit, and use.
In a situation where Alo Yoga and Nike are pouring money into premium women’s fitness apparel, market consistency becomes a key factor. Price-based competition can be won or lost quickly if the standard is not met.
Learning From Repeated Mistakes
If this sounds like 2013 again, that’s because the pattern is familiar.
Back then, Lululemon responded by revising its production and introducing new testing protocols. The incident prompted a leadership shake-up and a multi-year effort to rebuild consumer trust.
That’s what makes this recurrence notable. It also follows a more recent episode. In mid-2024, Lululemon pulled its Breezethrough leggings weeks after launch due to fit complaints and criticism of seam placement. Analysts have described the 2026 Get Low issue as another instance of “sheer pant déjà vu”. After a US$60 million loss and a global PR issue a decade ago, how does a similar problem reemerge in 2026?
It’s a question every brand executive should be asking.
Operational Best Practices Worth Revisiting
Brands with premium positioning can’t afford inconsistent product outcomes.
This incident offers a few reminders for global consumer brands:
- Run pre-launch wearability tests across multiple demographics and environments. Lighting, climate, and movement all matter.
- Maintain ongoing feedback loops post-launch, with mechanisms to rapidly adjust production.
- Don’t wait for virality to respond. Own the narrative early, even if that means acknowledging faults.
Lululemon’s global profile ensures that any product oversight becomes public record. That record, once established, becomes part of how consumers evaluate future purchases.
Closing the Loop: Is Lululemon Listening?
Pausing online sales of the leggings was a start. Unlike in 2013, the company is attempting to educate guests and troubleshoot issues rather than immediately remove all physical inventory. At the same time, a leadership transition adds complexity. CEO Calvin McDonald is scheduled to step down on January 31, 2026, with the company operating under a temporary co-CEO structure during the search process. But Lululemon has not yet issued a roadmap for addressing the concerns raised.
No relaunch date. No revised specs. No admission of fault.
In the short term, the brand may weather this without major financial damage. But the long-term implications will depend on how openly and effectively it communicates—and fixes—what went wrong.
The product line was called “Get Low”.
The brand can’t afford to stay there.