As U.S. Customs and Border Protection moves closer to Phase 1 of its streamlined tariff refund process launching on April 20, consumers—who will not directly receive refunds from the government—continue to file class action claims against a broad range of businesses seeking tariff-related payouts. In the coming weeks, these cases are likely to proliferate, and companies should be prepared to defend against these types of claims. Importers may also see similar cases filed if the worldwide Section 122 are ultimately invalidated. The Court of International Trade heard argument in those challenges last week, and our tariff tracker will continue to provide updates on the relevant developments.
Consumer claims
Consumers cannot expect to receive government refunds, yet have felt a significant impact since the IEEPA tariffs were imposed. Studies have calculated the cost to consumers at approximately $1,751 per household—a figure that numerous state governors have cited in demanding that the administration issue refunds to constituents. Further, the total revenue of IEEPA tariffs has been calculated at $165 billion. With vast sums of money potentially at issue, the plaintiff’s bar inevitably will attempt to take a share.
Consumers across the country have begun filing putative class actions against large brands, retailers, and importers, alleging broadly similar claims: that defendant companies increased prices in reliance on the IEEPA tariffs, that the IEEPA tariffs were unlawful, and that, therefore, consumer class plaintiffs are entitled to be refunded what they paid. These claims are typically couched as equitable in nature (e.g., causes of action for unjust enrichment or the related doctrine of money had and received), or as statutory, relying on state-law consumer protection statutes.
To date, about two dozen class actions have been filed against companies such as Costco, Federal Express, and Lululemon.
We anticipate that the number of cases will grow considerably. Certain plaintiffs’ class action firms are focusing on this area in the hope of obtaining a large recovery or settlement.
Defenses
The defenses available to companies facing these types of lawsuits will vary from case to case, depending on each plaintiff’s allegations and each defendant’s specific position. The claims brought, such as unjust enrichment, are often fact-intensive and thus difficult to dismiss as a matter of law.
Despite this, Reed Smith perceives numerous strong defenses to both the causes of action at hand and the argument for class certification. Consumer plaintiffs may be subject to mandatory arbitration and/or class waiver clauses in the “terms of use.” Defendants can also assert that the tariffs were lawful when prices rose, and those increased prices are not unjust or inequitable. Going forward, companies should carefully consider internal and external messaging to consumers, or downstream counterparties, concerning the company’s position on such price increases and/or tariff refunds.
Client Alert 2026-087