IEEPA Refund Claims Are Here — Are You Ready?

At a Glance

• Plaintiff-side advertising and pending cases reflect themes alleging: (1) unfair or deceptive business practices under state consumer protection laws, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) common law "money had and received."
• The strongest claims for tariff recovery arise from contracts governing the downstream sale after importation. The first step to avoid unnecessary litigation is initial risk assessment and mitigation through clear internal and external communication.
• Most US companies are some combination of manufacturer, importer, purchaser, seller, or distributor — which means that assessment of IEEPA tariff refund liability requires a tailored approach.
• Additionally, IEEPA refund and pricing discussions can create antitrust risk if competitors exchange competitively sensitive information or coordinate responses.

Many companies are already facing class action litigation seeking recovery of tariffs paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Several plaintiffs' class action firms are also publicly advertising "investigations" into companies that adjusted pricing during the periods when IEEPA tariffs were imposed. While these actions do not necessarily signal imminent litigation against target companies, they are a familiar precursor to putative consumer or commercial class actions. Similarly, many downstream customers are demanding recovery of IEEPA tariffs they feel were passed along to them.

Importers, suppliers, distributors, and retailers that adjusted prices during IEEPA tariff periods should assess whether their pricing, refund, and customer-response practices could create consumer protection, contract, unjust enrichment, or antitrust exposure. Risk can arise regardless of whether the targeted company is the importer of record, particularly if plaintiffs cite shared invoices, labels, pricing, or customer communications.

Background

On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court determined that the IEEPA duties are unlawful.¹ The US Court of International Trade (CIT) subsequently ordered that all IEEPA duties collected must be refunded.²

Although the interim orders at the CIT are currently stayed, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is actively developing and implementing the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) refund program for IEEPA duties in phases.³ CBP deployed Phase 1 on April 20, 2026; and refunds are already being paid.

The total amount of duties collected pursuant to IEEPA is approximately $166 billion, but the Phase 1 refund process covers only a limited subset of entries that have not been administratively finalized. Phase 1 does not include entries subject to reconciliation or which have been finally "liquidated," as of the date that the refund claim is filed. Accordingly, potential claims may face ripeness and damages issues, including whether a particular entry is refund-eligible, whether a refund has been received, and whether any refund corresponds to a particular downstream sale.

As seen with the first IEEPA refund-related class actions filed (even before refunds were issued), timing issues do not eliminate litigation risk. Plaintiffs may use a company's tariff-related customer statements, surcharge labels, or internal refund discussions to plead claims before refund amounts are fully known. Further, plaintiffs may choose to proceed even if a company does not plan to seek IEEPA refunds.

Emerging Plaintiff Theories

Plaintiff-side advertising and pending cases reflect themes alleging: (1) unfair or deceptive business practices under state consumer protection laws, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) common law "money had and received." Plaintiffs are likely to argue that companies imposed "tariff surcharges," misrepresented the basis for price increases, failed to disclose possible refunds, or retained revenue tied to tariff amounts now subject to refund.

Class-certification risk will likely turn on whether plaintiffs can identify common proof, such as uniform invoice language, website statements, sales scripts, form contracts, or centralized pricing directives. Companies should be mindful of records supporting individualized defenses, including contract terms, actual duties paid, refund eligibility, and the relationship between any tariff cost and the final price charged.

Risk Assessment & Mitigation through Clear Communication

The strongest claims for tariff recovery arise from contracts governing the downstream sale after importation. Whether a company remits refunds, reserves rights, denies a demand, or takes a wait-and-see approach while the issue of refunds remains live in the courts, risk assessment should start by pairing contract review with transaction-level evidence of what was paid, collected, communicated, and ultimately refunded.

Companies' approaches to tariff refunds are not one-size-fits-all. Some companies may want to issue refunds, provide future discounts, or other customer incentives; while others may wish solely to honor contract terms which may or may not involve refunds.

Regardless of the strategy taken, the first step to avoid unnecessary litigation is initial risk assessment and mitigation through clear internal and external communication. Companies should consider the following potential mitigation strategies before litigation commences:

• Review contracts; purchase orders; invoices; tariff clauses; surcharge language; price-adjustment provisions; and rebate, credit, or pass-through terms that may affect any refund entitlement. Tax language should be assessed alongside tariff language.
• Reconstruct pricing chronology including fluctuation as tied to tariff increases and decreases.
• Preserve and review communications about tariff pricing, customer notices, refund eligibility, and refund strategy, while protecting attorney-client privilege, work product, and settlement communications where applicable.
• Segment customers by contract type, sophistication, channel, jurisdiction, and communication history to evaluate individualized issues and potential class-certification defenses.
• Adopt a consistent response protocol for refund inquiries, including approved talking points, escalation procedures, litigation holds, and controls on informal statements that could be characterized as admissions.
• Inform downstream customers, particularly in the B2B context, that there remain many moving pieces with respect to potential refunds, and even with CBP's ability to claw back refunds.

Unconventional Risks — Assignment of Claims & Antitrust

Importers may consider the risk of potential suits fully mitigated by passing on tariff refunds to their customers. Unfortunately, additional risks lie beyond the first-wave class action litigation that has already begun.

Importers who agree to pay their downstream customers, particularly in the B2B space, should consider how they might limit potential liability, particularly with respect to assignment of their purchaser's claims to downstream consumers.

Similarly, companies in the middle of the supply chain (whether purchasing inputs used to manufacture products domestically or acting as distributors) should (1) consider their potential risk with respect to customer claims if downstream prices were raised due to tariffs and (2) inquire whether suppliers are taking active steps to seek refunds.

Most US companies are some combination of manufacturer, importer, purchaser, seller, or distributor — which means that assessment of IEEPA tariff refund liability requires a tailored approach.

Additionally, IEEPA refund and pricing discussions can create antitrust risk if competitors exchange competitively sensitive information or coordinate responses. Companies should avoid competitor discussions about whether to issue refunds, refund amounts, future prices, tariff-related surcharges, customer communications, or common credit or pass-through methodologies. Trade association activity, benchmarking, shared templates, dual-distribution relationships, buying groups, and joint logistics arrangements should be managed carefully.

Finally, importers who have sold their IEEPA refund claims to investment firms should be aware that the sale of those claims may not make them immune to claims from downstream customers. Firms purchasing such claims also should be mindful that a successful suit against the importer could require payment to plaintiffs. Parties negotiating such transactions should carefully consider whether the terms of the claims purchase agreements appropriately assign risk for any such suits.

For More Information

For further information, you may contact the authors. Faegre Drinker's public companies and governance, customs and international trade, class action, and antitrust teams also are tracking developments for IEEPA-related class actions.