3/10/26 — No Refunds Have Been Issued, But Consumer Class Actions Are Already Here

The Cases Filed So Far

The Legal Theory

The plaintiffs' theory is that companies which collected tariff costs from consumers, whether as explicit line-item surcharges or as general price increases, will be unjustly enriched if they receive tariff refunds from CBP while retaining the revenue they collected from their customers.

These lawsuits were triggered by the Supreme Court's February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, effectively invalidating the entire IEEPA tariff program. It is worth noting that as of this writing, no refunds have actually been issued to any importer by CBP, and the CIT's refund process remains under development. The suits have nonetheless been filed preemptively, targeting companies based on what they collected from consumers rather than on what they have received back from the government.

At least five putative consumer class actions have been filed in federal district courts in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, New York, and Tennessee. The defendants fall into two broad categories.

Logistics Companies That Charged Explicit Tariff Surcharges

In Reiser v. Federal Express Corporation (S.D. Fla., No. 1:26-cv-21328, filed Feb. 27, 2026), FedEx is accused of billing consumers directly for "duties, taxes, and fees" that it paid to CBP as customs broker and importer of record. The named plaintiff was charged $36 for a single pair of tennis shoes shipped from Germany ($21 in IEEPA duties and $15 in ancillary brokerage and clearance fees) on goods that would have entered entirely duty free under the applicable Column 1-General rate. The complaint asserts claims for declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Notably, while FedEx has publicly stated it plans to return refund proceeds to customers, the complaint argues the company has made no legally binding commitment to do so.

In Anastopoulo v. United Parcel Service Inc. (N.D. Ga., No. 1:26-cv-01005, filed Feb. 20, 2026), filed on the same day as the Supreme Court's decision, the complaint alleges UPS wrongfully collected tariff charges from consumers and increased overall shipping costs based on "now-invalid" IEEPA tariffs. The suit asserts breach of contract claims and seeks to cover all U.S. residents who paid tariffs to UPS under IEEPA.

Consumer Brands That Embedded Tariff Costs in Retail Prices

In Ward v. EssilorLuxottica (E.D.N.Y., No. 26-cv-1133, filed Feb. 26, 2026), the parent company of Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples, and Persol is accused of raising prices across its U.S. product lines in response to IEEPA tariffs. The named plaintiff purchased Ray-Ban sunglasses from ray-ban.com in August 2025. The complaint alleges that certain Ray-Ban prices held steady from September 2024 through March 2025, then rose from $287 to $304 between March and May 2025, a period corresponding to the implementation of IEEPA tariffs. The suit asserts claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and deceptive trade practices violations under Ohio and New York statutes.

The complaint contrasts EssilorLuxottica's silence on whether it will pass refunds through to consumers with FedEx's public statements that it intends to do so, framing the silence as evidence of intent to retain a windfall.

Why This Matters for Importers

These cases are currently directed at logistics companies and major consumer brands. However, the legal theories are broad. As the law firm Covington & Burling noted in a March 2026 alert, the theories advanced in these cases could extend to any company that imposed itemized IEEPA tariff surcharges, increased prices in response to IEEPA tariffs, publicly attributed price increases to tariffs in earnings calls or press releases, filed or intends to file refund actions in the Court of International Trade, or has not addressed how consumer-level IEEPA tariff charges would be treated if refunds are received.

There is also the possibility that shareholder derivative suits could seek to force a company's board to pursue IEEPA refunds from CBP, creating litigation pressure from a different direction entirely.

Potential Defenses

These lawsuits are in their early stages, and legal commentators have identified several potential defenses.

The most obvious issue is ripeness. No IEEPA refunds have been issued yet. The question of whether a company will be "unjustly enriched" is arguably premature when no enrichment has occurred; EssilorLuxottica, for instance, has not announced that it will not issue consumer refunds, but rather has simply not announced anything, because there are no refunds to pass through.

There are also contract-based defenses. Retail purchases are governed by a contract at a specific price. The tariffs were lawful when assessed and collected at the time of the consumer's transaction. The argument that a later judicial ruling retroactively entitles consumers to a partial refund from the retailer (rather than from the government) is untested.

Unjust enrichment claims may also be vulnerable where tariff charges were fully disclosed and paid voluntarily, or where plaintiffs rely on generalized price inflation theories without alleging that a specific tariff surcharge was assessed.

Finally, many companies' terms of use contain arbitration provisions and class action waivers that could narrow or eliminate class-wide exposure.

What Companies Should Consider Now

Companies that paid IEEPA tariffs and passed those costs through to customers, whether explicitly or through general price increases, should evaluate their exposure now, before the next wave of filings arrives.

In particular, companies should be reviewing public statements, earnings calls, and press releases for language attributing price increases to tariffs, as plaintiffs are mining these for evidence. Companies should also assess whether a proactive consumer refund commitment is appropriate, evaluate arbitration clauses and class action waivers in their customer agreements, and coordinate their tariff refund strategy with the risk of downstream consumer litigation.

This is an informational site maintained by Nakachi Eckhardt & Jacobson, P.C., a trade law firm specializing in customs and international trade matters. If you need legal assistance evaluating your IEEPA tariff refund strategy or your exposure to consumer class actions, please contact the firm directly at www.tradelawcounsel.com.