The Next Wave of Tariff Litigation: Consumer Class Actions

Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the class action plaintiff’s bar has begun filing class actions targeting businesses they claim passed tariff-related costs on to consumers.

The first wave of cases targets both logistics providers that imposed itemized tariff surcharges and consumer brands that raised prices in response to tariffs. Although untested and in their early stages, the complaints have sweeping implications on businesses across virtually every industry. Any company that imposed tariff-related fees or increased prices in response to the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs faces new, sprawling exposure that should be evaluated promptly.

Supreme Court’s IEEPA Tariff Ruling

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that tariffs imposed by President Trump under IEEPA exceeded presidential authority and were unlawful. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___, 2026 WL 477534 (Feb. 20, 2026). The ruling opened the door for importers to seek refunds from the United States for billions of dollars in IEEPA duties they paid. It has also spawned the latest wave in tariff litigation, a series of putative nationwide consumer class actions claiming that companies improperly retained IEEPA tariff-related revenue that was passed through to customers.

Consumer Class Action Litigation

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the IEEPA tariffs last month, as of the date of this writing, at least five putative consumer class actions have already been filed in federal district courts across the country in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. See Reiser v. Fed. Express Corp., No. 1:26-cv-21328 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2026); Ward v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., No. 1:26-cv-01133 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2026); Anastopoulo v. FedEx Corp., No. 2:26-cv-00753 (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2026); Anastopoulo v. FedEx Corp., No. 2:26-cv-02181 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 20, 2026); Anastopoulo v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01005 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 20, 2026); Anastopoulo v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00754 (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2026).

The complaints allege that these companies unjustly enriched themselves by collecting tariff-related charges that have since been invalidated and have failed to return those funds to the consumers who bore the actual economic burden of the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs.  

They allege that, in light of the invalidated IEEPA tariffs, retention of these funds is inequitable. Each complaint seeks certification of nationwide consumer classes.

The complaints filed to date reveal two distinct categories of tariff pass-throughs that plaintiffs are targeting:

• Explicit Line-Item Surcharges. In the FedEx and United Parcel Service cases, the companies are accused of billing customers itemized fees tied directly to IEEPA tariff duties, along with ancillary brokerage and clearance fees that plaintiffs allege would never have been charged but for the unlawful tariffs. For example, in one case, a plaintiff alleges that he was charged $36 in tariff-related fees — $21 in IEEPA duties and $15 in ancillary brokerage and clearance fees — for a single purchase of tennis shoes shipped from Germany. These cases generally assert claims for unjust enrichment and breach of shipping contracts between the companies and their customers.  
• Embedded Price Increases. EssilorLuxottica is accused of raising prices to offset IEEPA tariff costs. The complaint alleges that general retail price increases — publicly attributed to IEEPA tariffs — functioned as de facto “tariff surcharges,” even though not itemized separately. The complaint alleges, for example, that the price of certain Ray-Ban sunglasses held steady from September 2024 through March 2025, but then increased from $287 to $304 between March 2025 and May 2025, a period corresponding to the implementation of IEEPA tariffs. This action asserts claims for unjust enrichment and violations of state consumer protection statutes, on the ground that retention of IEEPA funds constitutes unfair, deceptive, unlawful, or unconscionable conduct. 

The complaints rely heavily on earnings calls, press releases, and public statements acknowledging tariff-driven price increases. Investor communications are thus likely to be closely scrutinized in future filings.  

One early strategic distinction is whether companies have publicly committed to passing through tariff refunds to customers. In the action against EssilorLuxottica, for example, the plaintiffs contrast the company’s alleged silence with public statements by FedEx indicating that, if refunds are issued, they would be passed through to shippers and consumers. Businesses that have articulated refund commitments may therefore be positioned differently — both legally and reputationally — than those that have not.

Implications

Under the theories advanced in this early set of cases, exposure is not limited to importers and would appear to potentially apply to a wide range of businesses that:  

• imposed itemized IEEPA tariff or customs surcharges
• increased prices in response to IEEPA tariffs
• publicly attributed price increases to tariffs
• filed or intend to file refund actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade or
• have not addressed how consumer-level IEEPA tariff charges would be treated if refunds are received

Retailers, electronic commerce businesses, consumer brands, manufacturers, distributors, and logistics companies may thus all be potential targets.

To mitigate risk, we recommend considering the following with counsel:

Identify whether and how IEEPA-related costs were passed to customers. Quantify potential exposure and identify affected customer populations.

• If the company has filed or intends to file a refund claim, consider whether a conditional consumer refund commitment is appropriate.
• Evaluate public statements. Earnings calls, Security and Exchange Commission filings, press releases, and website statements referencing tariff-driven price adjustments may become key evidence forplaintiffs.
• Careful coordination among outside in separate proceedings will be critical, as arguments advanced in refund proceedings before the U.S. Court of International Trade may impact defenses available in related consumer class action litigation.

The initial wave of consumer class action complaints demonstrates that plaintiffs are not limiting their theories to explicit tariff line-items. The broader argument — that any company that passed through tariff costs must return corresponding refunds — has potentially sweeping implications for businesses. As refund litigation proceeds and more companies seek recovery of IEEPA duties, further consumer class action litigation is likely to follow, pursuing yet additional novel and broad theories of recovery that may increase exposure and expand the scope of businesses potentially implicated by this new current of litigation.

*                      *                      *

Arnold & Porter has been tracking these developments and counseling clients on compliance and risk-mitigation strategies. Our team is here to help with any questions you may have.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Advisory is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.