Retail customers sue FedEx and Ray-Bans manufacturer over tariffs

Two retail customers have recently initiated proposed class-action lawsuits against companies that have taken legal action in trade court to secure refunds from tariffs that have been deemed unlawful. Matthew Reiser from Miami filed one lawsuit against FedEx, while Nathan Ward from New York filed another against EssilorLuxottica, the maker of Ray-Ban sunglasses. These lawsuits aim to ensure that consumers receive their portion of any refunds these companies may obtain after suing over the import taxes imposed by President Donald Trump without the required legal authority.

Over 1,000 companies, including major corporations like Revlon and Costco, have filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade to safeguard their ability to receive reimbursement for the tariffs invalidated by the Supreme Court on February 20. The tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were valued between $130 billion to $175 billion and are now subject to refund proceedings through either the U.S. Court of International Trade or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The refund process for these tariffs is expected to unfold in the near future as numerous lawsuits and claims progress through government channels. Many companies, including FedEx, have taken preemptive legal action to ensure they are positioned to receive refunds if and when they become available. FedEx has pledged to return any tariff refunds to the shippers and customers who originally paid them, but consumer lawsuits like the one filed by Matthew Reiser indicate uncertainty regarding the enforceability of this commitment.

The lawsuit brought against FedEx by Reiser highlights his payment of $36 in tariffs and custom brokerage fees for tennis shoes shipped by an online retailer from Germany. Similarly, Nathan Ward’s lawsuit against EssilorLuxottica claims that he paid elevated prices for Ray-Ban sunglasses due to tariff surcharges. Despite seeking refunds for duties collected as a result of tariffs, EssilorLuxottica has allegedly continued to charge these surcharges without refunding consumers.

Expert opinions, such as those from Barry Appleton of the Center for International Law at New York Law School, suggest that more consumer lawsuits may arise, particularly against companies that itemized tariff charges on customer transactions. While the legal outcomes of these cases remain ambiguous, they apply pressure on companies to share any tax refunds they succeed in securing. Appleton notes the progression of these consumer lawsuits as a natural development following the Supreme Court’s ruling against the tariffs and indicates a growing demand for consumer refunds as a result of the unauthorized duties imposed.