Does Alo Yoga Have PFAS or BPA? What the Testing Actually Shows (2026)

Short answer first. The only independent PFAS screen of an Alo product we could find detected no fluorine in the one legging it tested. BPA is a separate story: in 2023, a California nonprofit filed a legal notice alleging BPA exposure from Alo leggings made mostly of polyester with some spandex. Neither record proves Alo leggings are harmful, and neither one covers the whole collection.

The short answer

If you typed "does Alo have PFAS" into a search bar, there is a decent chance you are wearing a pair right now. Here is the honest version. As of September 2026, we could not find a PFAS or BPA policy published on Alo's website. So everything we know comes from outside testing and public legal records, and there is not much of either.

On PFAS, the record is reassuring but thin. On BPA, the record is an allegation that, as far as we could find, has not ended in a ruling against Alo. So, are Alo leggings toxic? Nothing we found shows that. What we found are two narrow data points, and this guide walks through what each one does and does not tell you.

We went through the lab summary and the California notice file line by line before writing this, because a lot of what circulates about Alo online blurs the two together. If you want the wider picture first, our full activewear guide covers PFAS, BPA and other finishes across the whole category.

What has actually been tested on Alo

The PFAS data point comes from Mamavation's activewear study. Mamavation is a consumer advocacy and wellness site, not a regulator, and its guide includes affiliate shopping links. It has sent 42 pairs of activewear, mostly leggings and yoga pants, to what it describes as an EPA-certified lab. That includes 32 pairs in its original round, bought between June and December 2021, and 10 more added between 2023 and 2026. Each pair was tested in the crotch area for fluorine, which is a marker for PFAS.

The Alo result: the Alo High-Waist Alosoft Flow Legging (style W5941R) came back "non-detect total fluorine." Mamavation placed it in its "better activewear" group. Across the original round, Mamavation reports that 25% of the pairs had detectable organic fluorine, with levels ranging from 10 to 284 parts per million (ppm).

What "no detectable organic fluorine" does and does not mean

This is where a lot of summaries overreach. A non-detect result is useful, but it has limits:

• The detection limit was 10 ppm. Mamavation says plainly that products testing at zero "may have had levels beneath 10 parts per million." A non-detect means below the test's floor, not proven zero.
• Fluorine is a marker, not a full PFAS panel. Mamavation explains that there is no standardized PFAS test for textiles, and that only about 150 of the thousands of PFAS compounds can be identified individually in a university lab. Screening for fluorine is a wider net.
• It is one style from one period. Alo sells many fabrics. The Alosoft Flow result says nothing direct about Airlift, Goddess or any newer line, and brands can change suppliers and finishes.
• It was a 2021 purchase. The Alo legging was part of Mamavation's original round, and the current guide lists no newer Alo result.

Put simply, the best available test on an Alo legging found no fluorine, the PFAS marker, at the level it could measure. That is a good sign for that product and an open question for the rest.

The BPA question: Alo and the activewear notices

BPA gets fewer searches than PFAS in the Alo cluster, but it is the more concrete record.

California's Proposition 65 lets private groups enforce its warning rules. They start by filing a 60-day notice with the state Attorney General. On June 28, 2023, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed notice 2023-01853, which covers "leggings made primarily of polyester that also contain some spandex." Alo, LLC is on its list of alleged violators, and the notice's exhibit names the Alo Yoga 7/8 High-Waist Airlift Legging as an example product.

In its own words, the notice alleges that BPA "is found in, and comes out of, the products," with exposure through the skin while they are worn, and that no Prop 65 warning was given. CEH's stated remedy is a recall of products already sold, warnings or reformulation going forward, and a civil penalty. A complaint in the same matter, CEH v. Athleta LLC, et al., in San Francisco Superior Court, lists Alo, LLC among dozens of defendants, including Nike, Adidas, Patagonia and The North Face.

Three things keep this in proportion:

• It is an allegation. The notice describes its own claims as allegations. We did not find a settlement or court ruling involving Alo in the public record we reviewed.
• It is not Alo-specific. The notice also covers leggings sold by Amazon and 99 Cents Only, and the complaint that followed names dozens of other companies.
• It is about one fabric type. The notice targets polyester-spandex leggings, not every Alo item.

As for BPA itself, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences describes it as a chemical produced in large quantities, mainly for polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. NIEHS says diet is the primary exposure source for most people, and that some animal studies report effects in fetuses and newborns. The NIEHS overview focuses on food and food containers and does not address clothing, so for now the legal notices are the main public record on BPA in leggings.

What 2025-2026 PFAS laws mean for leggings you buy now

The law has moved faster than the testing. Here is the short version for the places most of our readers live.

• California. AB 1817 bans the sale of new textile articles, including apparel, that contain "regulated PFAS" from January 1, 2025. That covers intentionally added PFAS and, as a second test, total organic fluorine at 100 ppm or more, dropping to 50 ppm on January 1, 2027. Outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions has until 2028.
• New York. Under the state's PFAS in Apparel Law, no one may sell new apparel containing intentionally added PFAS after January 1, 2025.
• Maine, Vermont and Connecticut. According to a Morgan Lewis review of 2026 state rules, Maine barred textile articles with intentionally added PFAS from January 1, 2026, and Vermont restricted textiles with intentionally added PFAS on the same date. Connecticut's rule for apparel with intentionally added PFAS took effect July 1, 2026, with a written notification route for sellers.
• European Union. UL Solutions summarizes Regulation (EU) 2024/2462, which restricts PFHxA, one group of PFAS, in consumer textiles, leather and footwear from October 10, 2026. The limits are 25 parts per billion (ppb) for PFHxA and its salts and 1,000 ppb for related substances.
• France. France's PFAS law of February 27, 2025 bans consumer clothing textiles containing PFAS from January 1, 2026, with exceptions for protective and safety gear. A wider ban on textiles follows in 2030.

Two practical points. First, these laws target new products offered for sale, not what is already in your closet. New York and California both word their rules around "new, not previously used" items. Second, a ban on intentionally added PFAS does not promise zero trace fluorine, which is why California and Vermont also use total organic fluorine thresholds. For background on why these chemicals are regulated at all, see our guide to PFAS forever chemicals in clothing.

How Alo compares with Athleta, Lululemon and Gymshark

The comparison is short, because the independent data is short.

• Lululemon. In the same Mamavation study, the Lululemon Align Highrise Pant measured 32 ppm total fluorine, while an Align short tested non-detect. Lululemon's 2026 PFAS questions and the company's own policy are covered in our Lululemon safety breakdown.
• Athleta. Mamavation found 17 ppm organic fluorine in Athleta Girl Chit Chat Shorts, a girls' item. Athleta is also the first-named defendant in the CEH BPA case described above.
• Gymshark. Gymshark is not among the brands Mamavation lists as tested, and we did not find another independent fluorine test we could verify. No data is not a clean result or a bad one. It is simply no data.

On the one measure where two of these brands have a public result next to Alo, Alo's tested legging came out ahead of the Lululemon and Athleta items in the same study. On BPA, Alo and Athleta are defendants in the same court case alongside many other brands. None of this ranks whole companies. It compares a handful of products bought in 2021.

How to check the leggings you already own

You cannot see PFAS or BPA, and no phone app can either. What you can see is the information that makes a chemical finish more or less likely.

Who should be more careful

Nothing in the public record we reviewed gives most people who wear Alo leggings a specific reason to worry. A few groups may still want to be more deliberate.

Pregnancy. The EPA's summary of current PFAS research links exposure to certain levels of PFAS with reproductive effects, including high blood pressure in pregnant women. It also lists developmental effects in children. The same page notes that most known exposures are relatively low, and it lists drinking water and certain foods among the ways people are exposed. NIEHS names diet as the primary BPA source for most people. So leggings are one small lever among several. If you have specific concerns, bring them to your OB or midwife.

Kids and teens. NIEHS notes that some animal studies suggest infants and children may be the most vulnerable to the effects of BPA. If you are buying activewear for a child, the same label habits and the first-wash rule apply.

Eczema or sensitive skin. For many people, heat and sweat are the more immediate problem. Eczema UK says many people with eczema find that synthetic materials such as polyester and nylon "cause overheating, sweating and irritation." A looser fit on easy days, a cotton-rich layer for lounging and washing new pieces first are simple fixes.

Frequently Asked Questions