If you are reading this article, you know how it works. 

1. Plaintiffs’ counsel develop a new theory of liability; 

2. They file a handful of lawsuits in various jurisdictions against a range of defendants; and 

3. If a complaint survives dismissal in one or more jurisdictions, the floodgates open. 

We may be in Step 2 of that process as it relates to tariff refunds.   

In recent months, plaintiffs’ firms have begun filing consumer class actions against retailers and consumer-goods brands claiming that if a company passed tariff costs on to consumers and later recovered those tariffs from the government, the company may be retaining a windfall at consumers’ expense.  The theory remains largely untested, but the breadth of companies already being targeted—from big-box retailers to apparel, footwear, and consumer electronics brands—suggests companies should take this trend seriously.

The lawsuits stem from the 2025 tariffs imposed by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (the “IEEPA”).  In February 2026, the Supreme Court struck down those tariffs, holding in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the IEEPA did not authorize the tariff regime and creating a pathway for importers to seek refunds of tariffs previously paid to the government.  That refund process has caught the attention of the plaintiffs’ bar. 

The lawsuits share a common theme.  According to the complaints, many companies responded to the tariffs by increasing prices on their products rather than absorbing the costs themselves. Plaintiffs allege that if consumers bore the economic impact of those tariffs and companies later recovered tariff payments from the government, consumers should be entitled to some form of restitution.  The complaints are creative, cycling through a medley of common law and statutory causes of action in courts across the country in the hope of gaining traction.

Of course, filing a complaint is one thing and proving it is another.  The theory is new, and courts have had little opportunity to evaluate it. It remains unclear whether these cases will gain meaningful traction or prove to be a short-lived experiment, but the first wave of lawsuits suggests that plaintiffs’ firms are only beginning to explore potential claims arising from tariffs.  For now, the most important takeaway may simply be awareness. Companies should not assume that the end of the tariff regime means the end of tariff-related risk.

The complaints also highlight another familiar feature of modern class action litigation: public statements matter.  Earnings calls, investor presentations, pricing announcements, media interviews, and public discussions of tariff-related business decisions feature prominently in many of the allegations.  Statements that may have been made to explain market conditions or reassure investors are now being revisited through the lens of consumer litigation.  Regardless of how the lawsuits ultimately fare, they offer a useful reminder that major economic events can have a long tail.  The tariffs themselves may be gone, but the litigation that follows them may only be getting started.