The warning does not stop you from filing a claim, but it explains why Lululemon says you have no right to collect. Two proposed class actions argue the company passed tariff costs onto shoppers and then sought a refund of those same tariffs from the government, while Lululemon's position is that only it, as the importer, can legally recover that money. The dispute centers on roughly a year of price increases on imported goods, tied to tariffs a federal court later ruled unlawful. Whether a customer can actually get money back depends less on whether prices rose and more on who the law says owns the refund.
Official resources:
- Explore the official data from SEC — Use this primary source to review the underlying data.
- Read the official notice from Bloomberglaw — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- What the lawsuits actually claim
- Why the tariffs were ruled unlawful in the first place
- The warning — and why Lululemon says customers have no claim
- Where the cases stand now, and what that means for filing a claim
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the lawsuits actually claim
Two separate cases make similar allegations against the same company. In *Alsaady v. Lululemon USA Inc.*, filed June 30, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the law firms Hagens Berman and The Miller Law Firm accuse Lululemon of unlawfully passing import tariff costs to consumers, according to Hagens Berman's press release. A second suit, *Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc.*, was filed earlier, on March 27, 2026, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, by plaintiffs Joshua Neuman, Jessica Kelley, Bobby Kelley, and Ronald K. Buckman III, as reported by Bloomberg Law. Both suits describe the same underlying conduct: Lululemon raised U.S. retail prices on imported goods starting in February 2025 to cover tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, then separately sued the federal government for a refund of those same tariffs once they were struck down, according to Hagens Berman's case summary. That timing is the heart of the complaint. Plaintiffs argue it is unfair for a retailer to charge customers for a cost, challenge that cost in court, and then keep any refund for itself rather than passing savings back to the people who paid the markup.
Why the tariffs were ruled unlawful in the first place
The tariffs behind both lawsuits did not survive legal review. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in *Learning Resources, Inc.
v. Trump* that IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose the tariffs at issue, invalidating the duties underlying the alleged price increases, according to a law-firm client alert covering the ruling. That ruling is why Lululemon had grounds to seek its own refund from the government in the first place: if the tariffs were never legally valid, the importer that paid them is entitled to get that money back. It is also why plaintiffs believe there is money on the table worth fighting over — the question is simply who is legally entitled to it.
The warning — and why Lululemon says customers have no claim
Lululemon's central legal position is what functions as the "warning" to anyone considering a claim: federal law gives the right to recover unlawfully collected tariffs exclusively to the importer of record — Lululemon itself — not to the customers who paid the marked-up retail price, according to Lululemon's FY2026 Form 10-Q filed with the SEC. In practice, that means the refund flows to Lululemon as a legal matter, regardless of whether customers absorbed the cost at checkout. The same filing undercuts one of the plaintiffs' core theories.
Lululemon states it has not recognized any asset on its books for further IEEPA tariff-refund claims, because it has not yet recovered all the duties it paid — which weighs against the idea that the company is sitting on a windfall it is refusing to share, at least as the claim is currently pled, per the same 10-Q filing. Because recovery rights sit with the importer rather than the retail customer, consumers have no independent legal claim to the refunded tariff money unless Lululemon chooses to pass it back voluntarily. Plaintiffs point out that other retailers facing the same invalidated tariffs set up voluntary customer refund programs, and argue Lululemon could do the same, according to Hagens Berman.
Where the cases stand now, and what that means for filing a claim
Neither case has reached a resolution that would let a customer file for compensation. No court has ruled on the merits of either lawsuit, no class has been certified, Lululemon has stated it intends to defend both suits, and no money has been paid to any customer, according to its FY2026 Form 10-Q.
That status matters for anyone tracking this story for a potential payout: Until a court addresses whether customers have standing to pursue tariff-passthrough costs despite the importer-of-record rule, or Lululemon opts to distribute savings on its own, there is nothing to file and nothing to collect. The practical step for now is watching for a ruling on class certification or a change in Lululemon's public position, since either would be the first sign that a real claims process is coming.
- There is no settlement fund, claim form, or deadline to act on yet.
- Class certification — the step that would define who counts as an eligible customer — has not happened in either case.
- Lululemon's legal defense rests on the argument that customers were never entitled to the refund money to begin with, not merely on procedural grounds.
- Any voluntary refund program, if Lululemon were to create one, would come from the company's own decision rather than a court order at this stage.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Lululemon settled either lawsuit?
No. Lululemon has stated it intends to defend both suits, no court has ruled on the merits, and no class has been certified, according to its FY2026 Form 10-Q.
Can a customer file a claim right now?
No. There is no certified class, settlement fund, or claims process in either case as of the latest filings.
Why does Lululemon say customers can't recover the tariff money?
Federal law gives refund rights for unlawfully collected tariffs to the importer of record, which is Lululemon, not to retail customers, per Lululemon's SEC filing.