Yes, businesses across the country are facing a significant wave of consumer class action lawsuits over illegal tariff costs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These lawsuits, which began filing in late February 2026 and accelerated through mid-March, claim that retailers, logistics companies, and other businesses unlawfully passed tariff costs to consumers after the government imposed duties that a federal court ruled unconstitutional. For example, one consumer was charged $36 in tariff-related fees—including $21 in IEEPA duties and $15 in ancillary brokerage and clearance charges—for a single shipment of a tennis shoe from Germany, prompting claims that many businesses owe refunds across the entire consumer base. The litigation surge stems directly from a landmark February 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling in *Learning Resources, Inc. v.
Trump*, which held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The court affirmed a Federal Circuit decision from August 2025 on the same question. Since those tariffs were illegal, the government collected approximately $133.5 billion in unlawful duties through December 14, 2025, and now owes an estimated $166 billion or more in refunds plus interest. But instead of waiting for government refunds to consumers directly, plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed at least 17 class actions as of mid-March 2026, arguing that the companies that collected tariff fees from consumers—not just the government—should return that money.
Table of Contents
- How Did the Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling Trigger This Wave of Class Actions?
- What Is the Financial Scale of the Unlawful Tariff Collections?
- Which Companies Are Being Sued Over IEEPA Tariff Costs?
- What Legal Claims Are Consumers Raising in These Lawsuits?
- How Widespread Is This Litigation Activity?
- What Was the Timeline of the IEEPA Tariff Program and the Court Rulings?
- What Should Consumers and Businesses Expect Moving Forward?
How Did the Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling Trigger This Wave of Class Actions?
The Supreme court‘s February 20, 2026 decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* invalidated tariffs that had been in place under IEEPA since early 2025. The decision affirmed the Court of Appeals for the federal Circuit’s August 2025 ruling on the same legal question—that the president lacked authority under IEEPA to unilaterally impose such duties. IEEPA is a national security statute intended to address international emergencies, but the courts concluded the tariff program exceeded the president’s powers under that law.
What makes this significant for consumers is the timing and the financial magnitude. The government collected $133.5 billion in tariff duties through December 14, 2025—a period of roughly nine months. However, these duties were not limited to importers alone. Retailers, e-commerce platforms, shipping companies, and other middlemen often passed tariff costs downstream to consumers through higher prices, itemized tariff charges, or ancillary fees. Since the tariffs were unlawful, the argument goes, all of those costs should be refunded. Consumers are now arguing that the businesses that collected these fees from them should not be allowed to keep money paid for an illegal government mandate.
What Is the Financial Scale of the Unlawful Tariff Collections?
The financial figures are substantial. The government collected $133.5 billion in IEEPA duties through December 14, 2025, making this among the largest involuntary financial transfers between government and importers in recent history. Legal experts and think tanks estimate the total refund obligation—including interest—could reach $166 billion or even $175 billion as of February 2026, depending on how interest accrual is calculated. However, it is important to note that not all of this $133.5 billion in duties flowed directly to consumers or was passed on uniformly.
some duties remained with large importers and manufacturers who absorbed the costs rather than increasing prices. But in many consumer-facing categories—particularly e-commerce, retail clothing, electronics, and household goods—tariff charges were passed to end consumers. In the case cited in litigation filings, a consumer paid $36 for $21 in IEEPA duties plus $15 in related brokerage and customs clearance fees for a single shoes shipment. Multiply that across millions of international shipments to U.S. consumers, and the potential exposure for businesses becomes clearer.
Which Companies Are Being Sued Over IEEPA Tariff Costs?
As of March 18, 2026, FedEx is the primary target, with at least 11 separate lawsuits filed against it. The litigation alleges that FedEx collected tariff costs from customers and did not refund them after the Supreme Court ruling. UPS has also been sued in multiple class actions for collecting similar illegal tariff charges. These companies processed international shipments for millions of consumers and were in a position to itemize tariff costs separately on invoices or integrating them into shipping fees.
Beyond logistics companies, major retailers and e-commerce platforms are also named defendants. Costco, for example, is facing a class action that alleges the company collected tariff costs from shoppers and has estimated potential refunds in the “hundreds of millions” of dollars. Court filings suggest consumers shouldered “two-thirds of President Trump’s new tariff cost” at Costco and similar retailers. More broadly, potential defendants could include other retailers, e-commerce businesses, consumer brands, manufacturers, distributors, and any business that collected tariff fees from consumers between the tariffs’ imposition and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
What Legal Claims Are Consumers Raising in These Lawsuits?
The lawsuits rely on multiple legal theories to seek refunds. The primary claims include common law restitution for unjust enrichment, the doctrine of money had and received (a common law principle that money paid by mistake under an illegal obligation should be returned), breach of contract claims (arguing consumers did not agree to pay illegal tariff costs), and violations of state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. Some complaints argue that by not refunding tariff costs after the Supreme Court ruling, businesses engaged in unfair or deceptive practices that harmed consumers.
Unjust enrichment claims are particularly potent in this context because they require only that the defendant received a benefit (tariff money from consumers) under circumstances that make retention of the benefit unjust. The fact that a federal court ruled the tariffs illegal provides strong support for the argument that keeping consumer payments for illegal fees is unjust. However, defendants may argue that they merely acted as collection agents for the government, or that they relied on government authority in good faith. Whether such defenses succeed will likely depend on the specific language of shipping terms, the timing of the refund demand, and state law.
How Widespread Is This Litigation Activity?
The filing pace is accelerating. Between February 26 and March 16, 2026—a three-week period—at least four lawsuits were filed by at least five different plaintiffs’ law firms, indicating that multiple litigation teams recognized the opportunity and began mobilizing clients. As of March 18, 2026, at least 17 lawsuits had been filed across multiple federal courts, primarily in the Northern District of Georgia, the Southern District of Florida, and the Eastern District of New York.
These jurisdictions were chosen strategically, likely because they have significant populations of consumers who received international shipments or shopped at major retailers during the tariff period. A significant caveat: these numbers may undercount actual litigation because new complaints are filed regularly, and some firms may consolidate cases before they receive public attention. Additionally, most litigation at this stage is still in the pleading phase, meaning the courts have not yet ruled on whether these claims will survive motions to dismiss. Early dismissals are possible if judges find that consumers lack standing to sue businesses rather than pursuing government refund procedures, or if businesses successfully argue they were merely collecting taxes on behalf of the government.
What Was the Timeline of the IEEPA Tariff Program and the Court Rulings?
The IEEPA tariff regime began in early 2025 and remained in effect for roughly nine months until the Supreme Court invalidated it on February 20, 2026. Notably, the Supreme Court’s decision merely affirmed what the Federal Circuit had already ruled in August 2025—that IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs. This means some legal challenges to the tariff’s validity had been pending for months before the Supreme Court’s decision provided a definitive ruling.
Consumers who paid tariff costs during this nine-month window now have grounds to argue for refunds. Companies that collected tariff fees from consumers and have not yet refunded them face potential liability, especially if they were aware of the legal challenges to the tariffs’ validity. The fact that the Federal Circuit had already ruled against the tariffs in August 2025 strengthens arguments that businesses should have anticipated the possibility of refunds by the time the Supreme Court ruled in February 2026.
What Should Consumers and Businesses Expect Moving Forward?
These class actions are in their infancy. Most complaints were filed in March 2026, meaning discovery and case development are just beginning. Defendants will likely move to dismiss, arguing that consumers must pursue government refund procedures or that businesses were authorized to collect tariffs under government authority.
The courts will need to resolve novel questions about whether consumers can sue middlemen companies for unlawful tariff pass-through, or whether their only remedy is a government refund. The scale of potential liability is enormous—if even a fraction of the $133.5 billion to $175 billion in unlawful tariff collections flowed to consumers through retail purchases, shipping fees, and e-commerce platforms, and if businesses are held jointly liable alongside the government, the financial exposure could reshape corporate liability for supply chain disruptions. Meanwhile, consumers who believe they paid tariff charges should monitor news of these lawsuits and consider whether they might be class members entitled to refunds.