Retail customers have turned to federal court to seek tariff-related refunds from companies they say passed the cost of disputed import taxes onto consumers, after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The proposed class-action filings target FedEx and EssilorLuxottica, the French eyewear company behind Ray-Ban sunglasses, and they ask judges to ensure any refunds companies obtain are shared with consumers.
The Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs on Feb. 20, according to the lawsuits’ backdrop described by the filing customers. The court’s decision called into question President Donald Trump’s authority to impose the import taxes under IEEPA, and the amounts involved were estimated in the news reports that described the ruling. In the wake of that decision, some importers and other businesses filed protective suits to preserve their refund rights while government refund systems and court processes were worked out.
One of the cases was brought against FedEx by Matthew Reiser of Miami. Reiser’s complaint says he paid $36 in tariffs and related fees, including customs brokerage and duty advancement fees, for tennis shoes shipped via FedEx by Tennis Warehouse Europe, an online retailer based in Schutterwald, Germany. The complaint also referenced FedEx’s public statement that the company would return any tariff refund it might receive to shippers and customers who had paid them, while alleging that FedEx’s pledge was not framed as a legally enforceable obligation without further government and court guidance.
FedEx did not immediately respond to a request for comment in the report describing the lawsuit. In the same reporting, Reiser’s complaint said FedEx’s pledge “creates no legally enforceable obligation and is expressly contingent on future government and court guidance that may never materialize.” The complaint’s core aim is to translate a corporate refund promise into court-enforceable relief for consumers, according to the described structure of the proposed class action.
Separately, Nathan Ward of New York filed a proposed class action against EssilorLuxottica involving Ray-Ban sunglasses sold directly online through ray-ban.com. Ward’s complaint says he purchased the sunglasses in August 2025 and that the price was higher than in the past in a way he attributed to a tariff surcharge. The complaint alleges that EssilorLuxottica continued to collect the tariff-related charges and had not refunded the surcharges to consumers.
EssilorLuxottica did not respond to a request for comment in the report describing Ward’s filing. The lawsuit seeks an order entitling Ward to a refund of the duties collected as a result of the tariffs at issue, according to the description of the complaint.
The filings arrive as a wider set of businesses pursue refunds through court and administrative channels. More than 1,000 companies, including large corporations such as Revlon and Costco, sued in the U.S. Court of International Trade to preserve their right to reimbursement, according to the same report. The next steps for refunds were described as being worked out through either the Court of International Trade process or through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with timelines emerging as the related claims proceed.
Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School, said in an interview that more consumer suits were likely to appear. He said the legal viability of the cases may not be straightforward, but he argued they could put pressure on companies that issued invoices or receipts with itemized tariff charges. “What we are watching is the predictable next chapter of the IEEPA story,” Appleton said, adding that after the Supreme Court told the White House it overreached and major importers lined up for refunds, ordinary consumers were now asking why they should not receive their money back too.