Key Takeaways
- • The U.S. Treasury has disbursed approximately $100 billion in tariff refunds to approved importers as of late July 2026, representing roughly 60% of the $166 billion in revenues collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) before the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs in February.
- • Class action lawsuits have been filed against major retailers including Five Below, Sony, and Nintendo by consumers alleging these companies received tariff refunds but failed to pass the savings back to customers who bore the cost of elevated prices during the tariff period.
- • Five Below reported a 22.9% year-over-year increase in net sales to $4.76 billion in 2025, with plaintiffs alleging the company preserved profit margins by passing tariff costs to consumers while declining to confirm whether it applied for refunds or intends to distribute them.
- • The litigation centers on whether companies that received tariff refunds from U.S. Customs and Border Protection have legal obligations to return these funds to consumers who absorbed the tariff burden through higher retail prices.
Summary
A significant disconnect has emerged between corporate tariff refund distributions and consumer reimbursement expectations. As of late July 2026, approximately $100 billion in tariff refunds have been disbursed by the U.S. Treasury to approved importers, according to a filing to the U.S. Court of International Trade. This sum represents roughly 60% of the $166 billion in revenues collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—tariffs that the Supreme Court invalidated in February 2026.
While U.S. companies have begun receiving refunds from the struck-down import duties, American consumers are mounting legal challenges against major retailers over the distribution of these proceeds. New York resident Tyasia Johns filed a class action lawsuit against discount retailer Five Below in July, alleging the company received tariff refunds but failed to pass them to customers who paid inflated prices during the tariff period. Similar litigation has been filed against Sony and Nintendo. The complaints argue that companies passed the cost of IEEPA tariffs to consumers through elevated retail prices while preserving profit margins, subsequently receiving refunds without disclosing intentions to distribute them.
The Five Below complaint highlights the company's financial performance during the tariff period, noting a 22.9% year-over-year increase in net sales to $4.76 billion in 2025. According to the lawsuit, Five Below has not confirmed whether it applied for or received refunds through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, nor has it publicly stated an intention to return any refunds to consumers. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and actual damages for class members, though the specific magnitude of damages and class size were not quantified in the filing. The core legal question centers on whether retailers that benefited from tariff refunds bear financial obligations to the consumers who ultimately funded the tariffs through higher purchase prices.
While U.S. companies have begun receiving refunds from the struck-down import duties, American consumers are mounting legal challenges against major retailers over the distribution of these proceeds. New York resident Tyasia Johns filed a class action lawsuit against discount retailer Five Below in July, alleging the company received tariff refunds but failed to pass them to customers who paid inflated prices during the tariff period. Similar litigation has been filed against Sony and Nintendo. The complaints argue that companies passed the cost of IEEPA tariffs to consumers through elevated retail prices while preserving profit margins, subsequently receiving refunds without disclosing intentions to distribute them.
The Five Below complaint highlights the company's financial performance during the tariff period, noting a 22.9% year-over-year increase in net sales to $4.76 billion in 2025. According to the lawsuit, Five Below has not confirmed whether it applied for or received refunds through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, nor has it publicly stated an intention to return any refunds to consumers. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and actual damages for class members, though the specific magnitude of damages and class size were not quantified in the filing. The core legal question centers on whether retailers that benefited from tariff refunds bear financial obligations to the consumers who ultimately funded the tariffs through higher purchase prices.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.