The Supreme Court struck down the tariffs. Many companies raised their prices to cover those tariffs – and haven’t given the money back. Edelson Lechtzin LLP is investigating.
If you bought sneakers, a handbag, a game console, baby gear, a camera, power tools, groceries, a watch, or almost anything else over the past year, there is a good chance you paid more because of the Trump administration’s global tariffs. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled those tariffs illegal – but many of the companies that raised prices to cover them still haven’t refunded their customers a dime.
Edelson Lechtzin LLP, a highly rated national class action law firm, is investigating whether major retailers and brands owe consumers refunds. Here’s what happened, why it matters, and what you can do.
What the Supreme Court Actually Decided
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) were unlawful, and it invalidated the tariff orders issued under that law. The ruling came in Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. 229, 230 (2026) (holding that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs).
Starting in early 2025, the federal government had imposed sweeping tariffs on imported goods under the claimed authority of the IEEPA. Those tariffs sharply increased the cost of importing consumer products into the United States – and many companies passed that cost straight through to shoppers by raising retail prices.
The “Double Dip”: How Companies Could Get Paid Twice
Here’s the part that has consumers – and their lawyers – paying attention.
When the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs, the companies that had paid those import duties became eligible to recover that money from the federal government. So a company that raised its prices to cover the tariffs may now:
- Keep the higher prices it has already collected from customers, and
- Recover the same tariff money from the government.
That’s a potential windfall – collecting the tariff cost twice, once from you and once from the federal government – while the customers who actually paid the higher prices get nothing. Our investigation focuses on companies that raised prices for the tariffs, have not refunded or credited those amounts to customers, and now stand to recover the tariffs from the government.
Companies Under Investigation
Edelson Lechtzin LLP is investigating potential class action claims involving the following companies and brands. Consumers have already begun filing tariff-refund lawsuits against several of them.
Consumer lawsuits have already been filed against:
- Del Monte Foods – packaged and canned foods
- IKEA – furniture and home goods
- Levi Strauss & Co. – apparel
- Lululemon – activewear and apparel
- Mondelez – snacks and packaged foods
- Newell Brands – including Graco baby products
- Nike – athletic footwear and apparel
- Nintendo – Switch 2 game consoles
- Sony – PlayStation consoles and gaming products
- Stanley Black & Decker – DEWALT tools and power equipment
Additional companies and brands we are investigating:
- American Eagle – apparel
- Apple – smartphones and other consumer electronics
- Best Buy – retail electronics and appliances
- Canada Goose – luxury outerwear
- Canon – cameras and imaging products
- Gap Inc. – brands include Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, and Athleta
- Hermès – luxury goods
- Nikon – cameras and imaging products
- Polaris Inc. – Polaris ATVs
- Richemont (Compagnie Financière Richemont S.A.) – brands include A. Lange & Söhne, Alaïa, AZ Factory, Buccellati, Cartier, Chloé, Delvaux, Dunhill, IWC Schaffhausen, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Montblanc, Mr Porter, Net-a-Porter, Panerai, Piaget, Peter Millar, Purdey, Roger Dubuis, Serapian, The Outnet, TimeVallée, Vacheron Constantin, Van Cleef & Arpels, Vhernier, Watchfinder & Co., and Yoox
- SharkNinja – home appliances (Shark and Ninja products)
- Swatch Group – 16 watch and jewelry brands, including Blancpain, Harry Winston, Omega, Longines, Tissot, and Hamilton
- Tapestry – brands include Coach and Kate Spade
- UPPAbaby (Monahan Products LLC) – strollers and baby gear
- VF Corporation – brands include The North Face, Vans, Timberland, and Dickies
Did You Buy From Any of These Brands?
You may be affected if, during the period the tariffs were in effect, you purchased products in the United States from any of the companies or brands listed above – and paid a price that was increased because of the tariffs. You may be entitled to a refund of the tariff-related overcharge, or a share of any tariff refund the company recovers from the government.
What You Can Do Right Now
- Check your receipts and order history. If you bought from any of the brands above during the tariff period, keep your proof of purchase.
- Reach out. Contact Edelson Lechtzin LLP to learn about your rights – there is no cost to speak with us.
- Share this post. Friends and family who shopped these brands may be owed money, too.
Contact Edelson Lechtzin LLP
Edelson Lechtzin LLP is a highly rated national class action law firm that fights for consumers, investors, and employees harmed by corporate misconduct. If you purchased products from any of the above companies during the tariff period, or if you have information relevant to this investigation, contact us today.
Contact attorney Eric Lechtzin, 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300, Newtown, PA 18940, Telephone: 844-696-7492 ext. 1; Email: [email protected]; Website: www.edelson-law.com.
Attorney advertising. This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This post describes ongoing investigations; where noted, some consumer lawsuits have been filed by various plaintiffs, but no court has determined that any company identified here has engaged in wrongdoing, and Edelson Lechtzin LLP has not filed suit against every company named above. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no recovery is guaranteed. All company and brand names are the property of their respective owners and are used here solely to describe the scope of the firm’s investigation.