Walmart, Puma, Abercrombie & Fitch and Peloton Face Tariff Refund Class Action Lawsuits

Shoppers have filed five new proposed class actions over tariff refunds against Walmart (two cases), Puma, Abercrombie & Fitch and Peloton. They belong to a growing wave built on one idea: companies that raised prices to cover tariffs the Supreme Court later struck down should not keep both the higher prices and any refund they receive from the government.

These are unproven allegations. No class has been certified in any of the five cases, there is no settlement, no claim form, no payment amount and no claim deadline. No company has been found liable.

Quick Facts: Tariff Refund Lawsuits Against Walmart, Puma, Abercrombie & Fitch and Peloton

Case	Defendant	Case number	Court	Filed
Mauldin v. Walmart Inc.	Walmart Inc.	8:26-cv-02642	M.D. Florida	September 10, 2026
Rabadi v. Walmart Inc.	Walmart Inc.	3:26-cv-01697	D. Connecticut	September 30, 2026
Johnson, et al. v. Puma United North America LLC	Puma United North America LLC	1:26-cv-13987	D. Massachusetts	Not confirmed
Nghiem v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.	Abercrombie & Fitch Co.	2:26-cv-01030	S.D. Ohio	August 25, 2026
Gorchov v. Peloton Interactive Inc.	Peloton Interactive Inc.	1:26-cv-07525	S.D. New York	Not confirmed

Detail	Information
Main allegation	Companies passed tariff costs to shoppers and may keep government refunds without compensating them
Main legal theories	Unjust enrichment, money had and received, and (in some cases) state consumer protection laws
Underlying ruling	Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (U.S. Supreme Court, February 20, 2026): IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs
Status of all five cases	Complaint stage
Class certification	None
Settlement website	None. No settlement exists
Claim form and deadline	None

Why Are Shoppers Suing Over Tariffs?

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose the challenged tariffs. Roughly $165 billion in collected duties became refundable to importers, with interest, according to filings in the Court of International Trade.

Here is the catch for shoppers. Only the importer of record, the business that paid the duty at the border, can claim a refund from the government. A customer who paid a higher shelf price cannot. U.S. Customs and Border Protection launched its CAPE refund portal on April 20, 2026, and refunds began reaching businesses in May. CBP later told the Court of International Trade it had paid about $100 billion as of July 31, 2026.

The plaintiffs argue this lets companies recover the same cost twice: once from customers at the register and again from the government. They ask courts to make the companies share refunds with the people who allegedly funded them.

That argument is contested. A government refund to an importer does not automatically mean every customer is owed money. Plaintiffs must prove their legal claims and a legally recoverable loss.

For background, see AllAboutLawyer.com’s IEEPA Tariff Class Actions, Were You Overcharged?.

The Five Tariff Refund Lawsuits

1. Mauldin v. Walmart Inc. (Middle District of Florida)

Kathy Mauldin filed this case on September 10, 2026. It alleges Walmart raised prices to cover tariff costs and also raised prices on certain U.S.-sourced products not subject to the tariffs, spreading tariff-related costs across its range. It alleges Walmart received about $2.9 billion in tariff refunds but has offered no process for shoppers to recover the tariff-related portion of what they paid. That figure is the plaintiff’s allegation, not a finding.

Proposed class: Walmart customers who bought goods between February 4, 2025 and February 20, 2026, including buyers of goods allegedly subject to tariffs and buyers of U.S.-sourced goods whose prices allegedly rose to spread tariff costs. Buying something at Walmart in that period does not automatically make you a class member, and the court has not approved any class. The case invokes deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment and money had and received. The court has not ruled that Walmart must refund anyone.

2. Rabadi v. Walmart Inc. (District of Connecticut)

Sharon Rabadi filed a second Walmart case on September 30, 2026, with similar allegations and the same reported class period (February 4, 2025 to February 20, 2026). It also challenges the alleged effect of tariff costs on prices of products not directly subject to the duties. The two Walmart cases are separate lawsuits in different courts and may develop differently, although they could be transferred or consolidated.

3. Johnson, et al. v. Puma United North America LLC (District of Massachusetts)

Carl Johnson and Michael Smith allege Puma raised prices in response to tariffs and has not committed to refunding customers. They call it an unfair double recovery if Puma obtains a government refund while keeping the higher prices. They also seek California and Indiana subclasses. The lawsuit seeks restitution and other relief but sets no fixed amount for individuals.

This is not the first tariff suit against Puma. An earlier case, Lemense v. Puma United North America, LLC, was filed in the same court on June 11, 2026. It alleges Puma passed IEEPA tariff costs to shoppers and then sought a refund of the same tariffs, and it reportedly pleads only unjust enrichment and money had and received, with no state consumer statute.

4. Nghiem v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (Southern District of Ohio)

Amy Nghiem filed on August 25, 2026. She alleges Abercrombie & Fitch imports most of its products and passed tariff costs to shoppers, and should not retain a benefit from higher prices if it also gets refunds. She seeks a nationwide class and a California subclass, subject to the complaint’s exact definitions and any court ruling. The reported claims are unjust enrichment, money had and received and state consumer protection laws.

5. Gorchov v. Peloton Interactive Inc. (Southern District of New York)

Elana Gorchov’s complaint focuses on hardware pricing. It alleges Peloton raised hardware prices by $200 to $700 per device on October 1, 2025. She seeks to represent U.S. consumers who bought directly from Peloton between October 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026. As reported, the complaint does not assert state consumer protection claims and instead relies on unjust enrichment and money had and received, seeking restitution, disgorgement and interest.

What Does “Double Recovery” Mean?

Imagine a retailer says tariffs raised its costs and raises the price of an imported product. A shopper buys at the higher price. If the retailer later receives a government refund of those tariffs, the shopper argues the company benefited twice.

That is the plaintiffs’ theory, not an established rule of law. Prices reflect many factors, including shipping, labor, supplier contracts, exchange rates and ordinary pricing decisions. Companies may argue prices did not move dollar-for-dollar with tariffs, or that plaintiffs cannot show a recoverable loss. Because the price was usually displayed and paid in full, these cases generally rest on unfairness rather than a false statement.

What Laws Are Involved in the Tariff Refund Lawsuits?

The tariff and refund laws

• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1707. The statute the administration used to impose the tariffs. The Supreme Court held it does not authorize them.
• Importer of record, 19 U.S.C. § 1484. The importer of record is responsible for paying duties and is the party entitled to claim a refund. This is why shoppers cannot claim from the government.
• Customs protests and refunds, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1514 and 1505. The rules on contesting duty assessments and on interest owed on overpaid duties.
• Court of International Trade jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). The CIT hears tariff and refund disputes, which is where importers have pursued refunds.
• Other tariff authorities. The ruling covers IEEPA tariffs only. Duties under Section 232 (19 U.S.C. § 1862, steel and aluminum) and Section 301 (19 U.S.C. § 2411, Chinese goods) were not affected and do not generate these refunds. That limits how much of any company’s tariff bill can be at issue.

The claims in the consumer lawsuits

• Unjust enrichment. A restitution theory: the defendant kept a benefit that fairness says it should not keep. Requirements vary by state, and some courts treat it as a remedy rather than an independent claim.
• Money had and received. A related common-law claim for money the defendant holds that, in equity and good conscience, belongs to the plaintiff.
• State consumer protection laws. Depending on the case, these may include California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5), Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.) and Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a). Check each complaint for the statutes actually pleaded.

Procedural rules and defenses likely to matter

• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)). Rule 23 sets the requirements for class certification, and CAFA explains why many of these cases are in federal court. Rule 23(e) requires court approval of any class settlement.
• Article III standing. Plaintiffs must show a concrete injury traceable to the defendant (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021)). Defendants argue a shopper is several steps removed from the duty payment.
• Pass-through and indirect-purchaser principles. In antitrust law, Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery, 392 U.S. 481 (1968), and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), show how courts treat cost “pass-on” arguments. They do not govern these cases, but they illustrate why tracing a cost down the supply chain is hard.
• Arbitration and class waivers. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), terms of use requiring individual arbitration can defeat class claims.
• Voluntary payment doctrine. Some states bar recovery of money voluntarily paid with full knowledge of the facts, which defendants may raise.
• Equitable relief and adequate legal remedies. Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit generally will not award restitution if a plaintiff has an adequate legal remedy (Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020)), which affects California-law claims.
• Pleading standards. Defendants commonly move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

A statute or doctrine named in a complaint or brief is not a finding that it applies or was violated.

What Defendants Are Likely to Argue

Law firm commentary on these cases points to recurring defenses:

• Standing and tracing. Tariff costs are hard to separate from other pricing inputs.
• Arbitration and class waivers. Terms of use may require individual arbitration.
• Lawful at the time. Prices were set while the tariffs were in force, which defendants say makes them neither unjust nor inequitable.
• Small individual recoveries. Tariff costs per product are often modest, which can undermine class certification.

No court has yet ruled on the merits of a consumer tariff pass-through claim, so it is unclear whether the theory will survive.

How Big Is the Tariff Refund Litigation Wave?

As of early October 2026, one tracker counted at least 27 consumer tariff pass-through class actions in 18 courts, with defendants including Amazon, Target, Nike, Lululemon, Ford, Toyota, Microsoft and Campbell’s. Every case it tracked was still at the complaint stage.

Can Shoppers File a Claim or Get a Tariff Refund Now?

No. None of the five cases has a settlement, claims administrator, claim form or deadline, and none has a confirmed payment amount. The companies have not announced consumer refund programs. Filing a lawsuit does not create a legal duty to pay anyone.

If you bought from one of these companies during the relevant periods, you can keep receipts, order confirmations, invoices and card statements. That costs nothing and could matter if a class is certified or a settlement is reached, but it does not guarantee you will qualify for money.

Beware of scams. Treat any text, email or website claiming a tariff refund is available through these cases as suspect, especially if it asks for bank passwords, gift cards or an upfront fee. A real claims process would be run by a court-appointed administrator and announced in an official court notice.

---

What Happens Next?

Each defendant will likely answer or move to dismiss. Next steps may include motions, discovery and class certification motions, which a judge decides separately. Cases against the same company in different courts, like the two Walmart suits, could be transferred or consolidated, though no such order has been reported. Cases may be narrowed, dismissed, litigated or settled. If any case settles, a court-appointed administrator would run the claims process, and this article will be updated with how to file.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a Walmart tariff refund class action?

Yes. Mauldin v. Walmart Inc. (Florida) and Rabadi v. Walmart Inc. (Connecticut) allege Walmart passed tariff costs to shoppers and should provide relief if it keeps tariff refunds. The allegations are unproven.

Are Puma customers eligible for a tariff refund?

A proposed class action alleges Puma raised prices because of tariffs and should return the alleged overcharges. No settlement or claim form exists, and eligibility depends on the class definitions, any certification and the outcome.

Is Abercrombie & Fitch being sued over tariff refunds?

Yes. Nghiem v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is pending in the Southern District of Ohio. No liability has been found.

Why is Peloton being sued?

Gorchov v. Peloton Interactive Inc. alleges Peloton raised hardware prices by $200 to $700 per device on October 1, 2025 and seeks relief for direct purchasers in the proposed class period.

Can I file a claim in any of these cases?

No. There is no settlement or claim form and no class has been certified.

Will I get a tariff refund from these companies?

Not now. Whether a court will order any company to share refunds with shoppers is untested.

Why can’t consumers get tariff refunds from the government?

Refunds go only to the importer of record. Shoppers who paid higher prices are not importers and cannot file in the Court of International Trade.

Does the Supreme Court ruling mean consumers automatically get money back?

No. The ruling did not create a consumer refund program. Importers’ refund claims and consumers’ lawsuits against companies are separate legal processes.

Are all tariffs refundable?

No. The ruling covers IEEPA tariffs only, not Section 232 or Section 301 duties.

Should I keep my receipts?

Nothing is required now, but keeping order history, receipts or card statements from the tariff period costs nothing.

When will these cases settle?

No reliable date exists, and a settlement is not guaranteed.

Editorial Note and Disclaimer

This article is general information about pending litigation and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. The allegations are unproven, and no company has been found liable merely because a complaint was filed. Court dockets change quickly, so verify the current status on the public docket and consult a qualified attorney about your own situation. AllAboutLawyer.com corrects errors promptly when they are identified.

---

Sources and Court Records

1. Mauldin v. Walmart Inc., No. 8:26-cv-02642 (M.D. Fla.). https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/8%3A2026cv02642/466007
2. Rabadi v. Walmart Inc., No. 3:26-cv-01697 (D. Conn.). https://dockets.justia.com/docket/connecticut/ctdce/3%3A2026cv01697/173293
3. Johnson, et al. v. Puma United North America LLC, No. 1:26-cv-13987 (D. Mass.); Lemense v. Puma United North America, LLC (D. Mass., filed June 11, 2026).
4. Nghiem v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., No. 2:26-cv-01030 (S.D. Ohio). https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ohio/ohsdce/2%3A2026cv01030/315178
5. Gorchov v. Peloton Interactive Inc., No. 1:26-cv-07525 (S.D.N.Y.). https://www.law360.com/cases/6a989038643550cebcf3f01c
6. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026).
7. Ballard Spahr, “Tariff-ied of a Refund Lawsuit? Takeaways From the Early Complaints” (March 2026).
8. Reed Smith, “Tariff Refund Class Actions Proliferate Against Brands and Retailers” (2026).
9. Loeb & Loeb, “Tariff Refund Litigation May Be Next Major Wave of Consumer Class Actions Against Brands and Retailers” (May 2026).
10. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Court of International Trade filings on IEEPA refunds (CAPE portal, April 20, 2026; payment figures as of July 31, 2026).
11. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1707 (IEEPA); 19 U.S.C. §§ 1484, 1505, 1514, 1862, 2411; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1581(i); 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 23.
12. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021); Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968); Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977); AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011); Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020).