�鶹ֱ��

Since the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated IEEPA tariffs in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump in February 2026, plaintiffs’ firms have filed more than 100 putative consumer class actions against businesses nationwide that have sought refunds of tariffs paid as a result of these now invalidated charges. These suits target companies across a range of industries, alleging that companies passed tariff costs on to consumers and now stand to collect an improper “double recovery” through government refunds. No court has yet ruled on the merits of these claims, and defendants have raised a number of significant threshold, procedural, and substantive defenses. This article summarizes the litigation landscape, principal claims, available defenses — including those our team has identified and deployed in active matters for clients currently facing these types of class actions — and practical steps companies should consider to assess and mitigate their exposure.

I. The Learning Resources Decision

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Court concluded that the power to impose tariffs is a component of Congress’s taxing authority and that IEEPA’s authorization to “regulate … importation” did not provide sufficiently clear statutory text to vest that authority in the executive branch.

Following the decision, the Court of International Trade issued a nationwide “Refund Order” directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to refund all IEEPA tariffs to importers of record. That order is currently on appeal before the Federal Circuit. Critically, only importers of record — not distributors, retailers, or consumers — have any right to recover tariff payments from the government.

II. The Surge in Consumer Class Actions

In the wake of the Learning Resources decision, more than 100 putative consumer class actions have been filed across 30-plus federal judicial districts, spanning over 20 states. Plaintiffs have filed class actions against companies across varying industries and points in the supply chain from food manufacturers to logistics providers. The specific allegations in each case differ, but the primary legal theory is the same: companies cannot pass tariff costs to consumers and retain government refunds for the same tariffs.

Retailers, Consumer Brands, and Manufacturers. In cases involving claims against retailers, consumer brands, and manufacturers, Plaintiffs assert a price pass through theory. In these cases, the Plaintiffs allege that the defendant raised prices and publicly attributed those increases to tariffs.  Plaintiffs argue that once tariffs were invalidated, defendants are unjustly enriched by retaining the price premium.

Shipping and Logistics Companies. In cases filed against shipping and logistics companies, Plaintiffs assert a direct surcharge theory based on itemized charges identified as “tariff surcharges,” “duty charges” or similar fees that were assessed at the time of shipment. Plaintiffs contend these charges were unlawful from inception (based on shipping contracts, tariffs, or terms of service) and must be refunded.

III. Claims Asserted

Across these cases, plaintiffs are asserting a variety of legal theories, including:

• Unjust enrichment
• Breach of contract / breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
• Money had and received
• State consumer protection and unfair business practices statutes (e.g., California’s UCL)
• Declaratory judgment
• False advertising
• Contract unconscionability / mutual mistake
• Constructive trust / breach of fiduciary duty

IV. Available Defenses

Despite the breadth of these filings, defendants have substantial defenses available. Based on our analysis of cases filed to date and our work on behalf of our clients — we have identified numerous defense strategies. No courts have ruled on the merits of these claims (or defenses), but a sampling of defenses available is provided below.

A. Lack of Direct Causal Link Between Tariffs and Consumer Prices

In many industries, consumer prices are determined by a complex interplay of factors — including global commodity markets, refining or manufacturing margins, seasonal demand fluctuations, state and local taxes, and competitive dynamics — making it extremely difficult for plaintiffs to isolate the incremental price impact attributable to IEEPA tariffs. This causation gap is particularly acute in the pass-through theory cases.

B. Insufficiency of “Information and Belief” Allegations

Many complaints fail to identify specific price increases, quantify the tariff-attributable portion of any increase, or cite actual pricing data linking retail prices to tariff expenditures. Instead, plaintiffs allege pass-through “on information and belief” without the specificity required to survive a motion to dismiss under Twombly and Iqbal.

C. Speculative “Double Recovery” Theory and Ripeness/Standing Challenges

Many of these cases were filed before defendants received any tariff refunds — and whether and when refunds will be received remains uncertain given the pending Federal Circuit appeal. The speculative nature of plaintiffs’ “double recovery” theory presents significant Article III standing and ripeness challenges.

D. No Legal Duty to Refund or Pass Savings to Consumers

No statute, regulation, or contractual provision requires defendants to pass tariff refunds through to retail consumers. Businesses retain broad discretion in setting prices, and there is no cognizable legal obligation to share cost savings with downstream purchasers. The fact that some companies have voluntarily chosen to pass refunds to consumers does not establish a legal standard of care binding on others.

E. UCL “Fraudulent” Prong Hurdles

Claims under the “fraudulent” prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law (and analogous state statutes) require a showing of representations or omissions “likely to deceive” reasonable consumers. In the tariff cases, plaintiffs have generally failed to identify specific affirmative misrepresentations. The alleged “fraud” amounts to an omission — failure to disclose litigation strategy regarding tariff refunds — which defendants have no duty to disclose.

F. No Unjust Enrichment Where Contract Governs

Defendants routinely obtain dismissal of standalone unjust enrichment claims at the pleading stage, particularly where the parties’ relationship is governed by an express or implied contract. This defense is particularly strong in certain direct surcharge theory cases.

G. Class Certification Challenges

Proving that tariff costs were passed through to each class member requires highly individualized, transaction-specific evidence. Consumer prices vary by region, location, product grade, date of purchase, and numerous other variables beyond tariffs. These individualized issues defeat the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and present a significant barrier to class certification.

H. Additional Defenses and Considerations

Depending on the specific facts and industry, defendants may also assert:

• Voluntary Payment Doctrine: Consumers who voluntarily paid prices without protest or duress may be barred from recovery.
• Contractual Defenses: Mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waivers in customer agreements may preclude or substantially limit putative class claims.
• FAAA Preemption: For claims involving shipping surcharges, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act may preempt state-law claims that relate to carrier rates, routes, or services.
• Charges Lawful When Collected: Where surcharges were imposed pursuant to tariffs that were lawful at the time of collection, defendants may argue that retroactive application of the Court’s ruling is inequitable.

V.  Risk Mitigation and Strategy

Companies that may be exposed to these claims should consider the following actions:

1. Assess Potential Exposure. Evaluate whether your company imposed direct tariff surcharges or publicly attributed price increases to IEEPA tariffs, and identify the universe of affected customers.
2. Review Public Statements. Audit press releases, earnings call transcripts, SEC filings, and customer-facing communications for references to tariffs or tariff-driven pricing increases.
3. Review Customer Agreements. Identify whether customer contracts contain mandatory arbitration clauses, class action waivers, tariff pass-through provisions, or pricing adjustment mechanisms.
4. Coordinate Refund and Litigation Strategy. Develop a coordinated strategy regarding tariff refund recovery from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and potential downstream obligations, if any.
5. Exercise Caution in Future Communications. Take care in how pricing decisions and tariff refunds are characterized in public and customer communications going forward.

If you have questions about the issues discussed in this article or would like assistance evaluating your company’s exposure to IEEPA tariff-related consumer class actions, please contact the authors.