Consumers push FedEx and Ray-Ban to refund tariff costs

A wave of class-action lawsuits filed by individual customers against large corporations has brought Washington’s tariff reversal into a new legal front, as shippers and retail buyers press for restitution of fees they say were unlawfully imposed. Plaintiffs have targeted delivery giant FedEx and eyewear maker EssilorLuxottica, which owns the Ray-Ban brand, arguing that costs passed on to consumers after a Supreme Court ruling invalidating former President Donald Trump’s broad tariff regime should be refunded.

The legal actions follow a landmark February ruling by the US Supreme Court that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping global tariffs was beyond presidential authority and therefore unlawful. While hundreds of companies have sued the government in the U. S. Court of International Trade to reclaim billions of dollars in duties paid, consumers are now saying they too deserve recompense for charges reflected on invoices and receipts.

A proposed class action lodged in a federal court in Miami accuses FedEx of retaining tariff and customs fees collected from millions of shippers and end-users without legally binding commitments to return those amounts. Plaintiff Matthew Reiser, who alleges he paid $36 in such charges on imported shoes shipped through FedEx’s freight network, claims the company’s public assurances that it would pass refunds back are contingent on future guidance that might never materialise.

At the same time, a separate complaint against EssilorLuxottica contends that Ray-Ban sunglasses purchased online were priced higher than comparable historic levels because the company added tariff-related surcharges. The suit argues that, by pursuing its own refund from the government while continuing to collect excess fees from customers, the company has gained a windfall at consumers’ expense.

Legal experts say the viability of consumer cases could hinge on how courts interpret contractual and statutory obligations, and whether companies that paid import taxes can be obliged to disgorge amounts beyond what they recover from the government. Barry Appleton, co-director of the Centre for International Law at New York Law School, suggests that lawsuits against companies that issued invoices with itemised tariff charges may proliferate, though outcomes are uncertain given the complexity of commercial law.

Beyond these customer suits, the broader litigation landscape remains congested. More than 2,000 refund claims have been filed in the Court of International Trade by companies from a wide array of sectors, including major manufacturers and retailers that argue the now-invalid tariffs artificially inflated import costs and squeezed margins. Firms such as Hasbro, L’Oréal, Dyson, Bausch + Lomb, Costco and J. Crew are among those seeking to recoup duties paid under the IEEPA-based tariffs.

The Supreme Court’s decision was grounded in constitutional limits on executive power, affirming that tariffs are a form of taxation and therefore fall under Congress’s authority. The judgment vacated much of the tariff framework imposed under the emergency powers statute, without setting out a clear refund mechanism, leaving courts and federal agencies to shape the restitution process.

FedEx has stated publicly that it intends to return any refunds it obtains from the government to its customers but has emphasised it will wait for explicit court or administrative guidance before doing so. That position, however, is precisely what plaintiffs in the consumer suits seek to make enforceable, alongside compensation for what they describe as “improperly collected” charges.

For consumers, the litigation marks a rare effort to assert rights in a legal terrain dominated by corporate interests and government policymaking. Advocates for shippers argue that retail purchasers should not be left bearing the financial burden of tariffs that courts have deemed illegitimate, especially where companies benefited from higher prices without giving back the corresponding tariff amounts.

The unfolding cases may also test how lower courts balance contractual rights between businesses and their customers against public policy concerns, especially when broad classes of consumers are involved. As federal judges consider motions to certify classes and clarify legal standards, the pace of litigation and the willingness of companies to settle or contest claims will shape the next chapter of tariff-related restitution.