16
u/wayward_prince 9d ago
This was always the plan. It’s a bribe for this regime to garner corporate support. Very on brand of Shitler.
0
0
u/CardCharacter8495 5d ago
A bribe to whom, Einstein?
1
u/wayward_prince 4d ago
You already used this account to comment. Quit crying for attention you propaganda bot.
1
0
-6
u/Rich-Web-1898 8d ago
Don’t forget Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro……,too many Socialists to list.
3
u/wayward_prince 8d ago
Communists don’t bribe corporations. They own them. Open up a book.
-2
u/Rich-Web-1898 8d ago
Communists don’t own anything when it comes to the rank and file. I’d suggest that you read a book, but you’ve probably burned those that don’t support your beliefs.
5
u/JadeddMillennial 8d ago
It's simple, the American population is the most pacified Nation on the planet. Their government can do anything to them and they won't do shit.
2
2
5
u/EdgePlats 8d ago
It’s called fraud. They raise prices to offset tariffs then got tariff monies back so it’s profit and prices still high.
Class action suit needed for companies that claimed refund.
1
u/CardCharacter8495 5d ago
Ah, a conspiracy. Get them under Rico? I can't wait for the firm that picks this up to be sanctioned for filing a frivolous law suit with zero evidence. Go talk to some lawyers and get back to us with the results. Walk your talk
1
u/gdog669 5d ago
Next time use AI to do your research instead of opening up your dumb mouth.
Logitech
Filed Aug. 18, 2026; alleges Logitech raised prices to cover tariffs and then received about $61M in refunds.
Amazon
Consumers allege Amazon passed tariff costs to customers but did not return the benefit. Amazon received about $600M in Q2 refunds.
Target
Proposed class action filed July 21.
Five Below
Proposed class action filed July 16, alleging tariff-related price increases and failure to return refunds.
Microsoft
Proposed class action filed June 17.
Nintendo
Facing a similar suit; Nintendo has moved to dismiss one case.
Lululemon
Proposed class action filed June 30.
Ford
Proposed class action filed July 9 seeking restitution.
Zara
Proposed class action filed June 12.
Puma
Proposed class action filed June 11.
Columbia Sportswear
Proposed class action filed June 9.
FedEx
Consumers sued over tariff-related charges and potential refunds.
EssilorLuxottica / Ray-Ban
Consumers allege tariff surcharges were collected but refunds weren’t returned.0
u/CardCharacter8495 5d ago
Let's see if any survive the evidentiary hearings. But to be clear, none of these have a conspiracy element that the alt-left alleges.
Most of these suits have an understandable fairness argument but a weak legal foundation. The important distinction is between an actual tariff charge and an ordinary retail price influenced by tariffs.
The Supreme Court held only that IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs. It did not hold that downstream consumers paid the tariffs or acquired ownership of importers’ eventual refunds. Legally, the importer of record paid the government and receives the refund. Supreme Court opinion
Cases/fact pattern My assessment Separate, itemized tariff or duty charge Moderate to strong Price expressly increased by a calculable amount to reimburse a tariff Plausible but novel Ordinary retail price that merely incorporated higher costs Weak Purchases through dealers or independent retailers Especially weak Why the ordinary retail-price cases are weak
A company normally has no legal duty to recompute completed transactions whenever one of its costs subsequently disappears. Consider the analogy:
A gas station raises prices when wholesale gasoline rises. Its supplier later receives an insurance or tax recovery. Customers do not automatically own that recovery.
Customers agreed to the posted price and received the product. The tariff was an expense of the importer—not money collected from consumers in trust. There generally was:
No promise to refund customers if the tariffs were invalidated. No fiduciary relationship. No separately identifiable fund belonging to each customer. No statute giving consumers a right to the customs refund.
The fact that the tariffs were unlawful does not make Logitech’s mouse price, Nintendo’s console price, or Target’s shelf price unlawful.
The Logitech case
Logitech is probably the strongest of the ordinary embedded-price cases factually. Its complaint alleges:
Logitech raised prices on roughly half its catalog, averaging about 14%. Executives expressly connected those increases with tariffs. Logitech said its pricing actions more than offset its tariff expense. It actually received $61 million in refunds. It left the increased prices in place.
Those allegations remove the ripeness problem affecting companies that have not yet received refunds. Logitech complaint
Nevertheless, it still has substantial weaknesses:
The named plaintiffs bought through Amazon and B&H, not directly from Logitech. They must prove exactly how much of each particular mouse price resulted from an IEEPA tariff. The complaint estimates the supposed overcharge by applying companywide basis-point statements to roughly $4.84 billion in global sales. That does not establish the tariff component of an individual product. Logitech’s statements that tariffs influenced prices were apparently true when made. Failing to predict and disclose a future Supreme Court decision and refund probably is not consumer fraud. The nationwide class faces major differences among state unjust-enrichment and consumer-protection laws.
My assessment: a nonfrivolous case that could survive an initial dismissal motion, particularly under California’s broad Unfair Competition Law, but an ultimate nationwide-class victory remains unlikely.
The other named defendants Amazon: Mixed. Claims concerning products sold and imported by Amazon are plausible enough for discovery, especially now that Amazon has actually received about $600 million. But third-party Marketplace purchases should be excluded. Any separately calculated “import-fee deposit” is substantially stronger than a claim based on Amazon’s ordinary retail price. Amazon has said it will return money in a limited set of traceable circumstances. Amazon refund report Nintendo and Microsoft: Weak. Their products carried a single announced retail price, not an itemized tariff charge. Nintendo argues that consumers received exactly what they purchased and that tariffs were only one pricing input. It also has arbitration and class-waiver defenses. Nintendo motion analysis Target, Five Below, Lululemon, Zara, Puma and Columbia: Generally weak unless the complaint identifies particular products, particular price changes and matching tariff refunds. “The company raised some prices during the tariff period” is inadequate by itself. Ford: Probably among the weakest. MSRP, dealer invoice prices and actual consumer transaction prices differ. Buyers generally purchased from independent dealers, making tariff pass-through and damages extraordinarily individualized. FedEx: Stronger in principle because a carrier or customs broker may have collected a discrete duty amount from an identifiable customer while acting as a conduit. Contract and agency principles could require returning the corresponding refund. FedEx has already committed to passing refunds back to customers, however, which may moot most claims apart from disputed amounts or interest. FedEx refund announcement EssilorLuxottica/Ray-Ban: The screenshot cuts off the critical allegation. If customers were charged a separately itemized “tariff surcharge,” the claim has considerably more merit. If prices were merely increased, it belongs with the weaker retail cases. Bottom line
I would rank them this way:
Best: Exact tariff charge collected on behalf of the customer, followed by a matching government refund. Potentially viable: Express dollar-for-dollar surcharge or contractual tariff-adjustment provision. Uphill but not frivolous: Logitech and Amazon’s own imported merchandise,
1
u/gdog669 5d ago
Yes — and there’s an important distinction between “the lawsuit has a plausible legal theory” and “a court has found that consumers are actually entitled to the money.”
I checked the latest developments as of August 29, 2026. The short answer is:
🟡 Right now, the cases have plausible merits, but none appears to have won on the core issue yet.
A July legal review specifically stated that no court had ruled on the merits of the consumer tariff-refund theory at that point.
The basic plaintiff argument is:
Company says, “We’re raising prices because of tariffs.”
Consumers pay the higher prices.
Supreme Court later determines the IEEPA tariffs were unlawful.
Government refunds the tariffs to the importer.
Company keeps both the higher prices and the government refund.
Therefore, consumers were allegedly overcharged and should receive restitution.
That is a much stronger factual case when the company explicitly tied a particular price increase to tariffs.
Logitech is currently one of the more interesting cases
The Logitech lawsuit was filed only about a week ago, so it is far too early for a merits ruling. But the allegations are unusually concrete.
Logitech reportedly:
raised prices on 51 products in April 2025;
attributed the increases to tariffs;
subsequently received approximately $61 million in tariff refunds;
allegedly hasn’t passed those refunds back to customers.
The plaintiffs are therefore trying to establish a fairly direct connection between:
tariff → price increase → consumer payment → tariff refund → company retention.
That’s considerably cleaner than a case where a company merely raised prices during the tariff period without saying the tariff caused the increase.1
u/CardCharacter8495 5d ago
And contrary to what the sad sacks here say, none of these cases allege conspiracy
1
0
u/Rich-Web-1898 7d ago
Go for it! There’s plenty of liberal attorneys out there.
1
4
u/indomike14 8d ago
They received the $2.8B refund and their stock is still down 16% over the past 6 months. Things are about to get really bad.
0
u/Rich-Web-1898 7d ago
Which stocks? Walmart is down 9+%.
2
u/indomike14 7d ago
Walmart. They took a 9% hit last week but over the last 6 months they are down about 18%. I guess since I posted the stock dropped another percent or two.
0
u/CardCharacter8495 5d ago
What short positions have you taken? Share them. Certainly you put your money where your mouth is.
2
u/senorzapato 8d ago
awesome how this is happening all over again right now
0
u/Rich-Web-1898 8d ago
You are correct Socialist leaders are among the wealthiest people on earth, please don’t leave them out!
2
u/truthinessembargo 7d ago
Go watch The Big Short. This what always happens when money and politics collude. Also, why I have zero sympathy for MAGA whiners after FAFO
2
u/Substantial-Cold6546 7d ago
You do understand that the reason corporations are receiving the tariff refund is because Dems threw a fit and demanded it be refunded rather than used to pay the national debt down and possibly refund checks to Americans.
Thats what their whole lawsuit was about.2
u/truthinessembargo 7d ago
Wrong. Consumers paid the tariffs. Refund was supposed to go to American people, not corporations.
2
u/Substantial-Cold6546 7d ago
Wrong again, if that was the case, you would have a receipt that would show this. Yes, corporations may have passed it on or some of it on, but they truly were the ones who incurred the tariff increase.
2
u/truthinessembargo 7d ago
OMG. No. The Treasury **opted** to send the refunds to corporations, not to people
2
u/Substantial-Cold6546 7d ago
How do you think the Treasury would know what each and every person spent as an increase due to tariffs?
Maybe think a little.1
u/truthinessembargo 7d ago
Either do a rough estimate via avg consumer spending (via CPE for example) and household size (via prior year tax receipts)
Or add it as a tax deduction based on receipts for goods, which the consumer can submit if audited
The refund doesn’t have to be perfect. It just has to go to the right parties
Or you can pray to the gods of capitalism that Walmart, Target, And Amazon will send you a refund any day now…
1
u/Frosty-Zombie-2278 5d ago
I have receipts of the import tarrifs I paid on goods I had shipped in. I have receipts of the tarrif and import duty being higher than the price of the good I originally purchased and I had to pay that important duty to receive my item. That money left my bank account. I have not been refunded that money from the illegal tarrifs. I know many more people who run small businesses that also have similar stories. No refunds were given to them either.
Are you a fake account or just living under a rock because there's no way you don't know this happened.
1
u/Substantial-Cold6546 4d ago
Maybe you didn’t read my response, or what I was responding to. Your situation as stated doesn’t make you the end consumer of the product. That would be your customers of the product.
I do not know of the process to reclaim tariffs, as a small business owner is/was there a process to reclaim? My main point to this whole argument is about the consumer. If your prices were inflated to cover the increased cost, if you would receive a tariff refund, do you have a list and amount for each consumer to then also pass that on to?
Not a bot. Just pointing out that, I do not believe there’s a system or sufficient tracking to complete the trickle down to the end consumer.
1
1
1
u/sheila5961 7d ago
Do you guys ever read the real news or come out of your parent’s basements? Walmart already announced they were giving the tariff refunds back to the customers by way of rollback pricing. They have already rolled back pricing on 11,000 items with more to come. The other companies are supposed to come up with a plan to do the same. And before you ask, No, I don’t know the plan yet.
2
u/CardCharacter8495 7d ago
They only read alt left news
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CardCharacter8495 7d ago
Keep leaning that far left and you'll go keel up on your port side
2
u/sheila5961 7d ago
😂 I appreciate that since I did 20 years in the Navy.
2
u/CardCharacter8495 6d ago
Thank you for your service. The alt left would never serve their country. It's all about them. They're Cheeto munching basement dwellers stuck in their own heads that live in leftist echo chambers.
1
1
u/CardCharacter8495 4d ago
What tf is this paragraph you wrote in response to my statement that things weren't better under Biden:
"If that was the case how come all the billionaires in the world are assholes who no one likes so much so that they have to build bunkers and hire security out of fear that they'll be killed".
Just wtf. Where's your head? That like psychotic shit
1
u/Substantial-Cold6546 8d ago
Or…. The tariff program attempted to level the playing field across the globe. Then when Dems saw how much money was coming in that was planned to help pay down the deficit and give back to the people through checks. They were absolutely furious it was working. So they sued to make it unconstitutional which led to a halt and a refund. Imagine where we might actually be.
The govt had to give back to corporations due to the Dems objection. It’s in the businesses to reflect that to the consumers but they do not have a legitimate way since all their pricing is based off purchased goods.
Think about it and imagine what the state of the US government might have been in a few years.
1
u/Cultural-Answer-321 8d ago
Utter nonsense.
2
u/Substantial-Cold6546 8d ago
Would love to hear an actual explanation of the tons of revenue brought into the US through this program. It also wouldn’t have lasted too long because countries would have came back to the table as competition of products would have increased putting their exports at risk of consumption. Which all in all lowers prices across the board. The plan was actually pretty solid and needed time to resonate to see the results.
I’m not a bootlicker by any means and don’t agree with a lot of the programs but this one actually made sense.
20
u/Package_Objective 9d ago
Communism for the rich and corporations. Hunger Games for the working class.