At least two retail customers pursuing tariff-related refunds have filed proposed class-action lawsuits in U.S. courts against companies that also sued to recoup costs from the import taxes the U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump imposed without the legal authority to do so.
The federal court lawsuits brought against delivery company FedEx and French eyewear company EssilorLuxottica, which makes Ray-Ban sunglasses, seek to ensure that consumers get a share of any refunds the businesses get. More than 1,000 companies, including large corporations like Revlon and Costco, filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to preserve their right to reimbursement.
On Feb. 20, The Supreme Court invalidated tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, worth an estimated $130 billion to $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 worked out in coming days or months as a bevy of lawsuits and claims work their way through government systems. Companies have been filing lawsuits protectively to ensure they receive refunds.
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 claims he paid $36 in tariffs and customs brokerage and duty advancement fees on 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 that he purchased Ray-Ban sunglasses from ray-ban.com in August 2025 that were priced higher than in the past, reflecting a tariff 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.
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 many more such consumer lawsuits to surface, especially against companies that issued invoices or receipts with itemized tariff charges. The legal viability of the cases is not clear-cut but they put pressure on businesses to share any tax refunds they manage to secure, he said.
“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?”
