At least two retail customers seeking tariff-related refunds have filed proposed class-action lawsuits in U.S. courts against companies that also sued to recoup costs from import taxes, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump imposed without legal authorization.
The federal court lawsuits targeting delivery company and French eyewear company (maker of Ray-Ban sunglasses) aim to ensure consumers get a portion of any refunds those businesses receive. Over 1,000 companies, including large corporations like and , filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to safeguard their right to reimbursement.
On Feb. 20, was implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), estimated to be worth between $130 billion and $175 billion.
A refund process, either through the U.S. Court of International Trade or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is set to be resolved in the coming days or months as numerous lawsuits and claims make their way through government systems. Companies have been filing lawsuits preemptively to ensure they get refunds.
stated it would return any tariff refund it receives to shippers and customers who paid. The complaint filed against FedEx on Friday by Matthew Reiser of Miami states the company’s pledge “creates no legally binding obligation and is explicitly dependent on future government and court guidance that may never occur.”
Reiser claims he paid $36 in tariffs, customs brokerage, and duty advancement fees for tennis shoes shipped via FedEx by Tennis Warehouse Europe, an online retailer based in Schutterwald, Germany.
FedEx did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a separate proposed class action filed this week, Nathan Ward of New York states he bought Ray-Ban sunglasses from ray-ban.com in August 2025, which were priced higher than before, reflecting a tariff surcharge.
The complaint states, “Despite seeking an order entitling it to a refund of the duties collected due to the subject tariffs, EssilorLuxottica continues to collect and has not refunded the tariff surcharges it collected from consumers.”
EssilorLuxottica also did not respond to a request for comment.
Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School, said he expected more such consumer lawsuits to emerge, especially against companies that issued invoices or receipts with itemized tariff charges. He noted the legal viability of these cases isn’t clear-cut but they pressure businesses to share any tax refunds they obtain.
Appleton said, “What we’re observing is the predictable next chapter of the IEEPA story. The Supreme Court told the White House it overstepped, 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?”