Who Gets the Refund? Brands & Consumers Collide Over Tariffs Windfall

More than 2,000 lawsuits have been filed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s February 20 decision striking down emergency tariffs. That ruling not only invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), but it also prompted the U.S. Court of International Trade to recognize that importers of record are entitled to refunds of duties paid under the unlawful tariffs regime. Against that backdrop, companies across industries – and a growing pool of consumers – have moved quickly to recover those sums.

In the weeks since the Supreme Court’s decision, the U.S. Court of International Trade’s docket has been flooded with complaints seeking refunds, joining the 1,000-plus cases that were already pending before the Supreme Court issued its opinion. Taken together, the volume of filings reveals both the scale of the financial stakes and the urgency with which companies are moving to secure their part of the estimated $166 billion – plus interest – that U.S. Customs and Border Protection is expected to return.

An Industry-Wide Refund Rush

Hundreds of companies across the retail market are among those bringing claims in the post-decision wave, including Jimmy Choo, Versace, Moncler, Stone Island, Marni, Jil Sander, L’Occitane, Byredo, Charlotte Tilbury, Carolina Herrera, Michael Kors, Thom Browne, Maison Margiela, and Good American, among many others. These cases – in which the plaintiffs range from large companies like adidas and Puig to smaller entities like New York-based accessories brand Margaux and B2B resale company LePrix – highlight both the industry-wide impact of the tariffs and the significant sums at issue for brands operating global supply chains.

In one such suit, filed on March 17, Skims challenges the government’s assessment of tariffs on its imported merchandise pursuant to executive orders issued under IEEPA, arguing that those duties were unlawful and must be refunded.

The claims being lodged by the brand co-founded by Kim Kardashian are not unique. In fact, they closely track those raised across the growing number of complaints being filed by importers, each seeking recovery of duties paid under the now-invalid tariff regime. Like many of those plaintiffs, Skims brings its case as an importer of record that paid tariffs pursuant to a series of 2025 executive orders, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision and related lower court rulings confirming that the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs.

Even with the SCOTUS opinion in place, refunds are not automatic. Much of the litigation surge took shape in the immediate aftermath of the decision, before the government launched the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (“CAPE”) portal on April 20, creating an administrative path for at least some refund claims.

While the portal is being rolled out in phases and does not yet cover every scenario, its launch signals a shift away from a purely litigation-driven recovery process and toward a hybrid model in which companies may pursue refunds through both administrative and judicial channels.

Parallel Consumer Class Actions

The legal landscape is not limited to company-initiated refund actions. A parallel wave of class action litigation has emerged, shifting the focus from managing tariff exposure to managing refund-related risk. In the weeks following the decision, plaintiffs’ firms have begun targeting retailers and consumer-facing companies seeking tariff refunds, advancing the theory that businesses that passed tariff costs on to consumers should not retain the benefit of government reimbursements. As of mid-March, multiple lawsuits reflect a developing argument that such refunds could amount to an impermissible “double recovery.”

This evolving risk comes as companies across industries pursue reimbursement of duties paid under the IEEPA regime, arguing that those payments were not legally owed and must be returned with interest. Early post-decision rulings suggest that relief may extend broadly to affected importers, helping to fuel the surge in filings. At the same time, companies that incorporated tariff costs into retail pricing must now consider whether they can defend how those costs were treated if refunds are obtained.

As Ballard Spahr’s Stephanie Sheridan and Meegan Brooks recently noted, “hundreds of thousands of importers” could face consumer claims if they receive refunds but cannot demonstrate that they have established a mechanism to return the tariff component of inflated prices to the end consumers who paid them – highlighting the growing legal and financial exposure tied to these claims.

THE BIGGER PICTURE: The scope of potential refunds heightens both the opportunity and the exposure for companies across industries, particularly as questions emerge around how tariff-related costs were handled at the consumer level. Although recent lawsuits suggest wide-ranging exposure, many claims may face practical hurdles – especially where pricing decisions cannot be clearly linked to specific tariffs. Even so, the size of potential recoveries is likely to incentivize companies to pursue refunds despite the risk of follow-on litigation.

This dynamic forces companies to take a more holistic approach, evaluating not only how to secure refunds but also how to address potential downstream exposure, including through pricing analyses, documentation of cost pass-through, and consideration of consumer-facing remedies.

More broadly, trade policy has evolved into a multi-front legal issue, where refund proceedings against the government and private litigation are unfolding in parallel. The addition of an administrative refund mechanism only sharpens that reality, potentially accelerating the return of tariff payments while increasing pressure on companies to justify what happens to those funds once recovered. As a result, companies are no longer simply responding to tariffs – they are navigating the legal and financial consequences of unwinding them.

The result? As it becomes easier for companies to recover tariff payments from the government, it may become harder to justify holding onto them.