Companies that imported goods subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and passed those costs along to consumers may face a growing wave of consumer class action litigation. These lawsuits seek to compel importers to return tariff costs that were embedded in retail prices, particularly where the importer is also seeking a refund of those same tariffs from the federal government.
IEEPA Tariffs and Refund Landscape
Beginning in February 2025, the United States imposed tariffs on imports from multiple countries under IEEPA authority. Importers paid those tariffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and, in many cases, passed those costs along to consumers through higher retail prices.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 146 S. Ct. 628 (2026), and tariff collection ceased.
On March 4, 2026, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered CBP to immediately issue refunds to importers of record; however, it later paused the immediate refund order to allow CBP to develop an adequate refund process. CBP estimates that approximately $166 billion in IEEPA duties were collected. Only importers of record, not the consumer, have standing to seek refunds in the CIT, prompting consumers to file claims in state and federal courts under equitable theories.
Emerging Class Action Litigation
One example is a proposed class action filed March 27, 2026, against Lululemon USA Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:26-cv-11029.
The complaint alleges that the company passed approximately $240 million in IEEPA tariff costs on to consumers through higher prices while simultaneously seeking a full refund of those tariffs from the government. Plaintiffs characterized this as a “double recovery,” asserting the company retained tariff-related revenue while pursuing reimbursement.
The lawsuit asserts claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received and seeks certification of a nationwide class covering the period from February 1, 2025, through February 24, 2026. Plaintiffs seek damages or restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
Key Takeaways for Importers
Lululemon could be an early indicator of potential issues for importers seeking IEEPA refunds. The claim provides a few key takeaways, including:
- Expect Increased Litigation Risk. Companies that raised prices in response to IEEPA tariffs and are pursuing refunds may face similar class action claims.
- “Double Recovery” is a Central Theory. Courts may scrutinize whether companies retained tariff-related revenue while also seeking government reimbursement.
- Document Pricing Decisions. Internal records related to tariff-driven pricing strategies are likely to be central in litigation and early discovery.
- Monitor Legal Developments. Both the refund process before the CIT and the related class action litigation continue to evolve.
Companies with significant import exposure should consult with a Varnum attorney to assess refund eligibility and navigate the evolving litigation landscape.
