Class action claims Lululemon kept tariff windfall instead of refunding customers

By Top Class Actions | July 29, 2026

Category: Legal News

Lululemon store sign. — (Photo Credit: ACHPF/Shutterstock)

Lululemon class action lawsuit overview:

Who: Two consumers filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Lululemon USA Inc.
Why: Plaintiffs allege Lululemon raised prices to offset unlawful tariffs and refused to refund customers after seeking government refunds.
Where: The Lululemon class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court.

Lululemon is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it unlawfully retained millions of dollars in tariff-related price increases paid by consumers after the tariffs were struck down by a Supreme Court ruling.

Plaintiffs Zeinab Alsaady and Abraham Kazan claim Lululemon increased the prices of apparel imported from countries, including Vietnam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Bangladesh, in response to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The complaint alleges that Vietnam alone manufactures about 40% of Lululemon’s products, and consumers ultimately paid those higher prices while shopping at Lululemon stores.

After the Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs, Lululemon allegedly sought government refunds, while consumers, on the other hand, do not have the option of recovering overcharges directly.

Plaintiffs argue that while the retailer is legally entitled to recover those tariffs from the government, it has not returned any portion of the recovered funds to consumers who allegedly paid higher prices because of the tariffs.

“Lululemon generated and retained a windfall from unlawful government action, and consumers — not Lululemon — are the ones left paying for it,” the class action lawsuit states.

Lululemon allegedly maintained post-tariff prices despite government refunds

The proposed class action lawsuit alleges Lululemon was unjustly enriched by retaining both the higher prices charged to consumers and any tariff refunds it may obtain from the government.

According to the complaint, once tariff refunds became available, Lululemon’s continued retention of the tariff-related price increases became “unfair, oppressive and substantially injurious” because consumers had already absorbed the economic burden of the tariffs.

The plaintiffs also point to other companies that allegedly implemented tariff refund programs after the tariffs were invalidated, arguing Lululemon could have adopted a similar approach but chose not to.

Alsaady alleges she purchased three Lululemon apparel items at a Michigan store in May 2025 for a total of $318.95, while Kazan alleges he purchased four apparel items at a New York store in November 2025 totaling $413.05. Both plaintiffs claim they paid prices that were higher because of the tariffs and have not been reimbursed.

The Lululemon class action asserts claims under Washington, Michigan and New York consumer protection laws as well as claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received and constructive trust.

The plaintiffs seek restitution of the alleged tariff overcharges or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Lululemon recovers, along with interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief the court deems appropriate.

Meanwhile, a consumer recently sued Amazon, alleging it passed tariff costs on to consumers while claiming to offer the lowest prices among major retailers.

Do you think Lululemon should return tariff-related price increases to customers? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman, Dana Abelson and Christopher R. Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and E. Powell Miller and Dennis A. Lienhardt of The Miller Law Firm P.C.

The Lululemon class action lawsuit is Alsaady, et al. v. Lululemon USA Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-05708, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.