Dive Brief:
- Customers who separately sued Amazon and Target to recoup higher costs from now-invalidated tariffs want to centralize their litigation with 26 similar cases filed against more than a dozen large retailers in an Illinois court that is considering similar disputes, according to a Tuesday court filing.
- In an amended motion filed Tuesday before the U.S. Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict litigation, attorneys for the customers asked the panel for an order “transferring and centralizing” the suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois where there are four actions pending against Costco Wholesale, Shein, Temu and JM Smucker.
- “Every action alleges, in one form or another, that the retailer defendants have been unjustly enriched by their retention of excess profits from shifting the economic burden of the unlawful tariffs onto consumers, or violated state consumer protection laws,” the motion states. “Centralization will result in the development of a consistent law of the case and the fair and economical adjudication of the actions.”
Dive Insight:
The latest action in the groundswell of class actions comes as tariff refunds have begun to flow into company coffers. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection said earlier this month that as of July 31 it it paid $100 billion in tariff refunds following a Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose levies, CFO Dive previously reported.
Currently, the class actions are pending in eight districts across states including New York, Washington, Michigan and Florida against 15 Big Box and online retailers. The motion states that the Northern District of Illinois is the most “suitable” forum because it has handled consumer-related, multi-district litigation and many of the retailers have large operations in or near Chicago.
The motion also argues the customers’ case. It stated that retailer defendants, many who spoke publicly about needing to raise prices due to tariffs, raised prices on more than just imported goods. Although retailers as the importers of record can obtain refunds, consumers lack the same option to request a refund, according to the filing.
“If the retailer defendants obtain refunds plus interest without compensating the consumers who actually bore the tariff costs, the retailer defendants will have recovered the same tariff twice — once from their customers and once from the government — and will be made whole twice over at the consumer’s expense,” the motion states.
The motion also acknowledges a separate bid to transferr tariff refund suits to Washington state courts but asks the panel to “subsume” the request. In an Aug. 24 filing, attorneys for Amazon said centralization of the suits filed in New Jersey, New York, Florida, Michigan and Ohio was warranted.
”Amazon vigorously disputes the plaintiffs’ claims,” Amazon’s filing states. “But Amazon agrees that if these cases proceed for the convenience of partieis and witnesses and in the interest of justice, they should proceed in one forum: the Western District of Washington.”
Attorneys for Amazon and Target did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
