Costco is asking a federal court in Chicago to throw out a proposed consumer class action that claims the warehouse retailer should hand back money tied to now-invalidated Trump-era import tariffs.
The dispute stems from a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), triggering a scramble among businesses seeking reimbursement from the federal government. Consumers, meanwhile, have begun filing lawsuits arguing those repayments should ultimately flow back to shoppers who paid inflated prices.
Costco says that argument collapses under its own logic.
In a court filing submitted Monday, the retailer argued the customer behind the case willingly purchased goods at clearly displayed prices and received exactly what was advertised. The company described the lawsuit as speculative, insisting there is no legal basis for retroactive refunds simply because certain import-related costs may later disappear.
The retailer also stressed that no tariff reimbursements have been received yet. According to the filing, it remains uncertain whether any refunds will materialize at all, how large they could be, or whether they could even be linked to particular products sold to consumers.
Costco further noted it has not settled on any policy for distributing potential tariff recoveries to members or shoppers. The company referenced earlier remarks from CEO Ron Vachris, who said the retailer would evaluate its options only “if and when” refunds are actually issued.
The lawsuit seeks a declaration forcing Costco to pass along any future tariff repayments connected to duties collected under the IEEPA framework.
The legal fight is part of a rapidly growing trend. Similar suits have already targeted companies including Amazon, Nike and FedEx, with consumers accusing major corporations of keeping tariff-related windfalls instead of returning them to buyers.
Costco, however, argues retailers are not automatically obligated to revisit old transactions simply because a business expense later disappears. In its filing, the company maintained that pricing decisions reflected costs at the time of sale, not hypothetical future court rulings.
The case is titled Matthew Stockov v. Costco Wholesale in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
