Any company that imported goods from February 2025 to February 2026 (or sourced from importers who imported goods during that period) and raised prices during that period, whether through direct price increases or separate surcharges, now faces exposure to a new wave of high-profile consumer lawsuits. The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Subsequently, the Court of International Trade and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have implemented processes to allow importers to recover the duties paid pursuant to these tariffs. Together, these actions have triggered a surge of litigation by plaintiffs’ firms, with upward of 100 lawsuits already filed in federal courts nationwide. The plaintiffs allege that companies that passed tariff-related costs on to consumers, and are now eligible for government refunds of the duties they paid, would receive an impermissible “double recovery” unless they return those price increases to their customers.
Background: The IEEPA Ruling
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not give the President the power to impose tariffs. The Court reasoned that tariffs fall within Congress’s taxing authority and that the statute’s language permitting the President to “regulate … importation” lacked the clear textual grant needed to delegate that power.
In the wake of the decision, the Court of International Trade entered a nationwide order requiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection to return IEEPA duties to importers of record. While that order is now before the Federal Circuit on appeal, CBP has already started a phased administrative refund process, with total repayments to qualifying importers estimated at $133 billion to $175 billion.
The key limitation is that only importers of record are entitled to recover tariff payments from the government. Downstream distributors, retailers, and consumers are not entitled to any refund. The new wave of lawsuits aims to close that gap through private claims.
Plaintiffs’ Allegations
Since late February 2026, plaintiffs’ firms have filed more than 100 putative class actions in at least 30 federal districts alleging that defendants were unjustly enriched, and in some cases violated state consumer protection and unfair trade practices statutes, by retaining both the tariff-related price increases charged to consumers and the government refunds of the underlying duties. The defendants in these suits range across industries and include some of the country’s largest companies, such as Costco, Amazon, Nike, Lululemon, IKEA, Nintendo, FedEx, and UPS, among many others. The common theory is that:
- During the IEEPA tariff period (roughly February 2025 through February 2026), the defendant raised prices or added tariff-related surcharges;
- The defendant is now seeking (or is eligible to seek) a refund of those same duties from the federal government; and
- Keeping both the elevated consumer prices and the government refund would amount to unjust enrichment.
The remedy these plaintiffs are seeking is the disgorgement of the tariff-attributable portion of the price increases with interest.
Emerging Defenses: The Costco Motion to Dismiss
Stockov v. Costco Wholesale Corp., which is pending in the Northern District of Illinois, may provide a glimpse into how these cases can be defended. The complaint asserts three causes of action: (i) violation of state consumer fraud and unfair trade practices statutes across ten states based on allegations that Costco raised prices while publicly representing that price increases would only be a “last resort” and failed to disclose that it was simultaneously seeking a full tariff refund from the government; (ii) quasi-contract/unjust enrichment based on Costco’s alleged retention of both the tariff-inflated prices paid by consumers and the anticipated government refund; and (iii) money had and received pleaded in the alternative to the unjust enrichment claim.
Costco has moved to dismiss the suit. The plaintiff alleges that Costco raised prices by approximately 30% in response to IEEPA tariffs and that Costco should be required to pass any monies recovered from refund claims through to its members. Costco seeks dismissal on three grounds:
- Ripeness. Costco has not received any tariff refund and has made no commitment as to how it would allocate one, stating only that it will “make a plan if and when we receive any refunds.” The claim therefore rests on speculation.
- No cognizable injury. The plaintiff voluntarily paid an accurately posted price and received the goods he purchased; no duty was breached.
- No legal obligation to reduce prices. A company does not incur liability merely because a cost that informed its pricing decision is later eliminated.
Briefing was completed on June 30, 2026. The court’s ruling remains pending.
Practical Next Steps for Companies
While these lawsuits face real legal obstacles, with more than 100 cases already filed and key rulings still to come, companies should take these steps now:
- Audit consumer-facing terms. Review your terms of sale and terms of use for arbitration clauses, class-action waivers, and choice-of-law provisions. Evaluate how enforceable they are in the jurisdictions where your consumer exposure is greatest.
- Document pricing rationale. Catalog how tariff costs showed up in your pricing, whether as a separate surcharge, built into list prices, passed through by contract, or absorbed. Preserve records from that time explaining the business reasons behind those decisions. Consider this broadly, as you may have experienced a price increase from a vendor without having a mechanism for determining what portion of that increase was due to tariffs.
- Control public messaging. Take stock of press releases, earnings-call transcripts, investor materials, and marketing that tied pricing to tariffs or referenced the amount of tariff recovery received. Plaintiffs are quoting these statements to support their claims that tariff costs were passed on to consumers.
- Coordinate your trade and litigation teams. The customs counsel handling your refund claims and the litigators tracking the consumer suits should be working together. The plaintiffs’ “double recovery” theory links the two workstreams directly.
- Avoid premature commitments. Hold off on public statements about whether or how any government refund would be shared with customers until the refund process, including the Federal Circuit appeal, is resolved.
- Monitor early rulings. Keep an eye on pending motions to dismiss, especially Costco’s. These first decisions will reveal how courts view these claims and will help shape your response if your company is named in a similar suit.
How Thompson Coburn Can Help
Thompson Coburn has attorneys with deep experience in both International Trade and Litigation & Class Actions. Our customs and trade counsel can help you pursue your CBP refund claims while coordinating closely with the litigation team so that positions taken in one proceeding do not undermine the other.
If your company imported goods subject to IEEPA tariffs, or sourced from importers who did, we encourage you to contact Thompson Coburn to discuss these recent developments.
