IEEPA Tariff Consumer Class Actions: Litigation Update

Highlights

• In recent weeks, the number of putative International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) consumer class actions has grown to approximately 100 cases across nearly 30 federal districts, with new complaints filed weekly. Several cases are fully briefed, and the first decisions addressing the core legal theories could be issued in the near term.
• The cases now reach well beyond retail, shipping, distribution and automotive companies, with suits filed against companies in the grocery and consumer packaged goods, energy, cycling and home goods industries.
• Defendants are relying heavily on standing, ripeness, the voluntary payment doctrine, contractual defenses and arbitration. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, are developing new responses, including pointing to competitors' consumer refund programs as evidence that refunds are feasible.
• Companies considering a refund or customer accommodation program should coordinate with litigation counsel before making any public announcement.

This Holland & Knight alert updates a previous analysis published on June 18, 2026, that discussed the wave of consumer class actions filed following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This update reviews where the cases now stand, the arguments defendants and plaintiffs are making, and what companies should be thinking about as the first rulings approach.

Litigation by the Numbers

There are now nearly 100 putative consumer class actions arising from the IEEPA tariffs pending in nearly 30 federal districts. The cases continue to cluster in four sectors:

• retail, consumer brands and manufacturers (about 60 percent of cases)
• shipping and logistics (about 17 percent of cases)
• distributors and marketplace retailers (about 17 percent of cases)
• automotive (about 5 percent of cases)

The pace of new filings has not meaningfully slowed since publication of the previous alert on this matter.

Two developments stand out. First, plaintiffs are targeting a broader range of industries. In addition to shipping, retail, distribution and automotive companies, plaintiffs have now sued grocery and consumer packaged goods companies, an energy company, bicycle manufacturers, and additional home goods, tool and electronics companies. The expanding range of defendants suggests that any company that raised prices during the tariff period and is pursuing, or may be eligible to pursue, a government refund could face a claim, regardless of industry.

Second, the shipping and logistics cases are beginning to consolidate. Plaintiffs' firms initially filed near-duplicate suits against shipping and logistics companies in multiple districts, then voluntarily dismissed some of those cases as the litigation moved toward a single lead venue for each carrier. Companies newly named in shipping-related suits should therefore be prepared for potential transfer or consolidation issues and consider venue strategy at an early stage.

Where the Cases Stand: A First Look at the Merits

Approximately a dozen cases have reached the motion to dismiss stage. They include both types of claims discussed in our June alert: direct surcharge claims against carriers and price pass-through claims against retailers.

Several motions are now fully briefed, and the first substantive rulings on motions to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration may be issued soon. Those decisions should provide early guidance on recurring issues, including standing, ripeness, the voluntary payment doctrine and arbitration. They also may influence how both sides approach the remaining cases.

Defense Themes Emerging Since June

With approximately a dozen cases now at the motion stage, several common defense arguments have emerged in recent weeks:

• Standing and the Voluntary Payment Doctrine Are Central to Many Motions to Dismiss. Defendants across retail, distribution and shipping cases argue that a plaintiff who voluntarily paid a disclosed price and received the goods or services purchased has not suffered a cognizable Article III injury. They also argue that the possibility of a future government refund does not retroactively turn a lawful, completed purchase into an injury.
• Ripeness Remains an Important Threshold Defense, Although It May Become Less Useful as Refunds Are Paid. Defendants continue to argue that any "double recovery" theory is speculative unless and until they actually receive a refund. However, as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) refund process moves forward and more companies receive refunds, that argument may become harder to maintain. This issue is particularly relevant with Phase III of the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries refund process set to launch later this week.
• Contractual Terms Can Provide a Strong Defense to Equitable Claims. Where a sales contract, terms of service or shipping agreement governs the transaction, defendants have argued that claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received are barred by the parties' express agreement. That argument has been particularly important in shipping and marketplace cases with detailed terms of service.
• Arbitration Provisions Are Already Having an Impact. Carriers with broad arbitration clauses in their published tariffs or terms and conditions have moved to compel individual arbitration. Those motions often argue that plaintiffs cannot rely on a contract as the basis for their claims while avoiding the arbitration provision in that same contract. At least one plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed their claims following an early motion to compel arbitration.
• Defendants Are Relying on Good-Faith Compliance with IEEPA Orders. Some defendants argue that the IEEPA's liability protection for parties acting in good-faith reliance on government orders applies to pricing decisions made while the tariff orders were in effect, even though those orders were later invalidated.
• Plaintiffs Are Developing New Responses. Plaintiffs increasingly point to the secondary market for tariff refund claims as evidence that refund rights already have economic value rather than constituting merely speculative future benefits. They argue that this undercuts defendants' ripeness arguments. Plaintiffs have also begun citing other companies' voluntary consumer refund or credit programs as evidence that refunds to customers are feasible. Companies considering their own refund or accommodation programs should closely monitor this development.

Plaintiffs are also adding new legal theories. Recent complaints include mutual mistake and unconscionability claims challenging express tariff-surcharge provisions, broader constructive trust theories directed at anticipated refund proceeds and, in one case, a claim under the federal customs broker statute based on its prohibition against willfully deceiving or misleading clients in the course of customs business.

Practical Considerations for Companies

• Coordinate Any Refund, Credit or Accommodation Program with Litigation Strategy Before Announcing It: Plaintiffs are already pointing to other companies' voluntary programs in support of their claims. A customer accommodation program may have consequences for pending or future litigation depending on how it is structured and described.
• Review Arbitration Provisions and Class Action Waivers Now: The shipping cases show the value of a well-drafted, clearly assented-to arbitration provision. Companies should review those provisions before litigation arises, while there is still an opportunity to strengthen them prospectively.
• Track the CBP Refund Process Closely: As refunds are paid, some of the defenses currently available to companies may change. Public disclosures about refunds, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, earnings calls and customer communications, should therefore be considered not only from an accounting and disclosure perspective, but also with potential consumer litigation in mind.
• Monitor the Early Rulings: The first decisions should provide important guidance on how courts view the basic "double recovery" theory and the defenses being raised against it. Companies with pending cases or potential exposure should be prepared to reassess their strategy as those rulings are issued.