At least two retail buyers seeking refunds tied to import tariffs have initiated proposed class-action cases in U.S. courts against corporations that themselves filed claims to recover costs from the import duties the U.S. Supreme Court determined President Donald Trump imposed without proper legal authority.
The federal complaints target shipping giant FedEx and French eyewear manufacturer EssilorLuxottica, the maker of Ray-Ban sunglasses, arguing that consumers should receive a portion of any reimbursements the companies ultimately collect. More than 1,000 businesses, including major corporations such as Revlon and Costco, previously filed actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade to safeguard their eligibility for repayment.
On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court struck down tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), totaling an estimated $130 billion to $175 billion.
A formal refund mechanism, either through the Court of International Trade or U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is expected to take shape in the weeks or months ahead as numerous lawsuits and administrative claims proceed through federal channels. Many companies have filed protective suits to preserve their rights to potential reimbursements.
FedEx said in a statement on Thursday that it would return any tariff refund it might get to shippers and customers who had paid them. The complaint filed against FedEx on Friday by Matthew Reiser of Miami states the company’s pledge “creates no legally enforceable obligation and is expressly contingent on future government and court guidance that may never materialize.”
Reiser alleges he paid $36 in tariffs along with customs brokerage and duty advancement charges on tennis shoes delivered via FedEx by Tennis Warehouse Europe, an online retailer headquartered in Schutterwald, Germany.
In a separate proposed class action submitted this week, Nathan Ward of New York claims he bought Ray-Ban sunglasses from ray-ban.com in August 2025 at prices higher than previously, reflecting a tariff-related surcharge.
“Despite seeking an order entitling it to a refund of the duties collected as a result of the subject tariffs, EssilorLuxottica continues to collect and has not refunded the tariff surcharges it collected from consumers,” the complaint states.
Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School, said he anticipates a wave of similar consumer litigation, particularly against firms that provided invoices or receipts itemizing tariff charges. While the ultimate legal strength of such claims remains uncertain, the lawsuits increase pressure on companies to distribute any tax reimbursements they secure, he noted.
“What we are watching is the predictable next chapter of the IEEPA story,” Appleton said. “The Supreme Court told the White House it overreached, the major importers lined up for refunds, and now ordinary consumers are asking the obvious question — if those duties were illegal, why shouldn’t we get our money back too?”
