Tariff Pass-Through Practices Are Drawing Consumer Class Action Scrutiny

By Brett W. Johnson, Colin R. Higgins, T. Troy Galan, and Derrick Kyle

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the challenged tariffs, importers have begun pursuing refunds for duties paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The refunds sought are significant, with reported estimates exceeding $165 billion.

This refund activity has spawned a distinct class action risk. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed dozens of putative consumer class actions against retailers, logistics providers, and importers, including publicly reported suits involving Costco, FedEx, and IKEA, alleging these companies must compensate consumers for any refunds received.

These cases remain untested in many respects, and defendants may have strong defenses. Even so, the trend warrants attention from businesses that adjusted pricing during the tariff period, imposed tariff-related charges, or linked their pricing decisions to tariffs in public statements. In addition, companies should evaluate and prepare for potential civil litigation related to recovery of tariff cost differentials by customers.

I. Why This Is a Class Action Issue

Because tariffs are paid to CBP by the importer of record, government refunds flow to the listed importer, rather than to downstream customers who may have borne some or all of the economic cost through higher prices. The contention is that a company should not keep both the tariff-related amounts collected from customers and a later refund covering the same duties.

Simple as that theory sounds, the underlying litigation is more complex. Plaintiffs may need to show that customers eventually paid an identifiable tariff amount, that the company has received or will receive a corresponding refund, that the governing contracts do not assign refund rights to the company, and that these questions can be resolved on a class-wide basis. As to whether a tariff was actually paid by the end-user customer, the support for the claim is either a line-item amount on the invoice or a significant price differential in the product after the tariffs were implemented.

These are class action issues, not merely customs regulatory matters. Standing, ripeness, arbitration, class action waivers, causation, damages, and class certification may each prove central to assessing claims.

II. Where the Risk Arises

Again, exposure may arise when a company separately identified a tariff charge, duty charge, import fee, or similar amount that customers could see and trace. In that setting, claimants may argue that the charge was directly tied to the tariffs and that customers should share in any related recovery.

Line-item charges are not the only concern. Plaintiffs are also pursuing companies that raised prices more generally while publicly notifying customers, investors, or the market that tariffs drove the increase via press releases, investors calls, or other public forum statements. Any statement attributing a price increase to tariffs, whether made to consumers, shareholders, or the public, may become part of the litigation record.

Companies should not assume that declining to seek refunds eliminates the litigation risk. Recent filings suggest plaintiffs may focus on whether consumers allegedly paid higher prices tied to tariffs, regardless of whether the company submitted a refund claim. In addition, public companies that do not seek the refund may be subject to shareholder derivate class action suits.

III. Key Defenses

Several defenses may narrow or dispose of these claims at an early stage.

First, if no refund has been issued, plaintiffs may face threshold problems establishing a present injury or a ripe claim. A complaint tied to a possible future recovery can depend on unresolved facts, including whether money is received, how much is recovered, and how the proceeds are handled.

Second, contract terms may prove significant. Properly implemented online terms, purchase conditions, shipping terms, distributor agreements, or customer contracts may require individual arbitration, limit remedies, or preclude class treatment.

Third, there are evidentiary proof issues to substantiate any claim. A general price increase is not the same as a tariff charge, and pricing often reflects multiple business inputs, including freight, labor, inflation, supplier pricing, currency movements, demand, and margin pressure. That record may support causation, monetary damages, and class-certification defenses.

Finally, companies may argue that customers voluntarily paid the disclosed price for the product or service received, and that a later government refund does not retroactively render prior pricing improper, particularly where the tariffs were being assessed and collected at the time of sale.

IV. Practical Steps

Companies that adjusted pricing during the tariff period, imposed tariff-related charges, or are evaluating refund claims should consider the following steps:

1. Identify customer-facing and public statements that connect pricing, charges, or fees to tariffs, including invoices, online terms, checkout pages, customer notices, sales materials, SEC filings, investor presentations, earnings-call scripts, press releases, and website FAQs.

2. Map how tariff costs were treated in practice, including whether itemized as a separate charge, embedded in product pricing, passed through under contract, or absorbed into a broader price adjustment.

3. Analyze governing terms for provisions affecting dispute resolution, remedies, refund rights, surcharge authority, limitations of liability, and choice of law.

4. Preserve records documenting the business reasons that supported pricing decisions.

5. Frame any customer credit, discount, gift card, or goodwill program carefully, avoiding language suggesting that customers “paid the tariffs,” that the company “owes” refunds, or that credits are being issued because prior prices were improper.

6. Coordinate customs recovery strategy with class action counsel before filing refund claims, announcing refund plans, issuing customer credits, or making public statements about tariff-related pricing.

V. Conclusion

The prudent course is to get ahead of the issue. Before communicating with customers, issuing credits, or taking any position that plaintiffs’ class action lawyers might later cast as an admission, companies should align their customs recovery strategy with their litigation-defense strategy. A developed plan prepared under the attorney client privilege with buy-in from the company stakeholders and that has a coordinated approach addressing tariff refund and post-refund litigation risks can preserve potential tariff recovery while reducing class action exposure.