Lululemon Sued by Customers Looking for Refunds of Tariff Costs

Lululemon USA Inc. is facing a proposed class action from consumers demanding the company refund them for tariff costs they say it passed on.

The sportswear retailer joins FedEx, Costco, and several others so far as targets of proposed class actions calling for tariff refunds for consumers.

As in other suits, the plaintiffs who sued Lululemon March 27 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan are claiming unjust enrichment—that the company unfairly received a benefit at consumers’ expense.

“Lululemon should not be permitted to retain the funds consumers paid above and beyond what they would have absent the IEEPA tariffs,” the plaintiffs wrote. “The money belongs to Plaintiffs and the Class, and Lululemon is obligated to return it.”

The Supreme Court said Feb. 20 that President Donald Trump didn’t have authority to levy tariffs under the emergency powers law he’d relied on for many of the tariffs he imposed.

Companies are now seeking refunds, and many—including Lululemon—have filed suit in recent months at the Court of International Trade. The trade court has ordered the government to refund importers, but Customs and Border Protection said it’s still building the technology to handle refunds for as many as hundreds of thousands of importers. It hasn’t started returning money yet.

Refunds would go to the importer of record—the company that paid the tariff when it brought goods over the border. Even if consumers bore some of the burden of the tariff costs, they don’t stand to be directly reimbursed when the government returns money to importers.

The suit points to past statements from company officials who said Lululemon would increase prices due to the tariffs.

“Although Lululemon will recover tariff refunds on the tariffed goods it sold, its customers bore the economic brunt of these tariffs by paying higher prices Lululemon admittedly set because of the IEEPA tariffs,” the plaintiffs wrote. “The risk of Lululemon obtaining double recovery is therefore imminent.”

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc., E.D. Mich., No. 2:26-cv-11029, complaint filed 3/27/26.