A consumer lawsuit accusing Lululemon of passing tariff costs on to shoppers while pursuing federal refunds for those same duties is getting bigger. In an amended complaint filed in August, seven consumers are now looking to represent purchasers across the U.S., backing their claims with product-level pricing data that they say shows how tariff costs made their way into retail prices.
The Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) came amid a wave of litigation that has continued in its wake. Companies have been pursuing refunds from the federal government, while consumers are bringing cases of their own against retailers to recover money they claim they paid through higher prices. The Lululemon case provides a clear look at how those consumer claims are taking shape.
Tracing the Tariff Pass-Through
In an amended complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on August 27, the plaintiffs allege that Lululemon passed the cost of IEEPA tariffs on to consumers through higher retail prices and is pursuing refunds for those same duties from the federal government.
To support their consumer-protection and unjust enrichment claims, the plaintiffs attempt to trace those tariff costs to the prices paid by individual consumers. They chart the prices of an array of Lululemon products over periods stretching as far back as 2017 in an effort to show price increases attributable to the IEEPA tariffs.
The plaintiffs also point to Lululemon’s own statements as evidence that at least some of its price increases were tied to tariffs. In June 2025, for instance, CFO Meghan Frank said that the company planned to implement strategic price increases in response to tariffs, and then-CEO Calvin McDonald later confirmed that tariffs would result in consumer price increases.
Together, those allegations form the basis of the plaintiffs’ double-recovery theory. And because consumers generally cannot seek tariff refunds directly, the plaintiffs argue that Lululemon should return the alleged overcharges or provide consumers with a proportionate share of any refunds it recovers.
The amended complaint also broadens the litigation. What began with two named plaintiffs and Michigan and New York subclasses now includes seven named plaintiffs and proposed classes covering California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, along with a nationwide class.
The Challenges at Play
While the plaintiffs maintain that the charts show price increases attributable to the IEEPA tariffs, they may also illustrate why proving tariff pass-through is not necessarily straightforward. After all, retail prices reflect more than import duties, and the increases depicted in the complaint do not all occur at the same time or in the same way. Isolating the portion of any particular increase attributable to an IEEPA tariff may be difficult, particularly when manufacturing costs, demand, margins, and other commercial considerations also impact prices.
And pass-through is only one of the issues that consumers may need to overcome. As Holland & Knight’s Ashley Akers and Austin Rainwater asserted in a recent analysis of the nearly 100 IEEPA consumer class actions pending across the country, defendants are arguing that consumers who “voluntarily paid a disclosed price and received the goods or services purchased” have not suffered a cognizable injury. They are also challenging double-recovery claims as unripe where the prospect of a government refund remains uncertain, although they noted that this argument “may become harder to maintain” as refunds are paid.
The cases also reveal an important distinction between tariff surcharges and ordinary retail prices. Some of the litigation challenges identifiable tariff surcharges, while cases like the one against Lululemon attempt to identify tariff costs embedded in product prices. The latter may require plaintiffs to establish how much of a price increase was attributable to the tariff in the first place, before reaching the separate question of whether a later government refund gives consumers a right to recover that amount.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The Lululemon case is one of a growing number of consumer suits running alongside the refund actions brought by importers. As companies seek to recover IEEPA duties from the government, those cases raise a separate question about what happens if the cost of the tariffs was passed down the chain to consumers.
The case is Alsaady v. Lululemon USA, Inc., 3:26-cv-05708 (W.D. Wash.).
Share
