Walmart class action lawsuits overview:
- Who: Two consumers filed class action lawsuits against Walmart Inc.
- Why: The plaintiffs claimed Walmart raised prices to cover tariff costs and kept the tariff refund it later received from the federal government.
- Where: The Walmart class action lawsuits were filed in Florida and Connecticut federal courts.
Walmart has been hit with two more tariff refund lawsuits. The class action lawsuits were filed on Sept. 10 and Sept. 30 in Florida and Connecticut federal courts, respectively.
Plaintiffs Kathy Mauldin and Sharon Rabadi claim Walmart passed the cost of federal tariffs, struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, on to shoppers through higher prices. The Walmart class action lawsuits allege the retailer raised prices on imported goods and on U.S.-sourced goods that were never subject to the tariffs.
According to the complaints, only the importer of record, the company that pays the tariff at the border, can apply for a tariff refund. Walmart has recovered $2.9 billion in refunds and has not offered consumers any way to reclaim what they paid, the lawsuits allege.
“In economic reality, the consumer paid the illegal tariff,” the complaints say, arguing Walmart will be unfairly enriched at shoppers’ expense if it keeps the refunds.
Mauldin and Rabadi each want to represent a group of Walmart customers who made purchases between Feb. 4, 2025, and Feb. 20, 2026, for goods subject to the tariffs and another group for U.S.-sourced goods purchased at prices Walmart raised to spread its tariff costs across its product line.
A similar Walmart class action lawsuit, filed in Florida federal court in May, alleges the retailer said publicly in 2025 that it would raise prices in response to the tariffs.
Puma, Abercrombie & Fitch, Peloton also hit with tariff refund class actions
In addition to the Walmart class action lawsuits, Puma, Abercrombie & Fitch and fitness equipment company Peloton are facing similar tariff refund lawsuits.
Plaintiffs Carl Johnson and Michael Smith allege Puma raised prices in direct response to the tariffs and has made no binding commitment to refund customers. Puma “stands to recover the same tariff payments twice — once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds,” the class action lawsuit says.
The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class, plus California and Indiana subclasses, of consumers who bought Puma goods at tariff-raised prices.
Abercrombie & Fitch is facing identical claims, with plaintiff Amy Nghiem alleging the retailer imports the vast majority of its products and passed its tariff costs on to shoppers. She seeks to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of Abercrombie customers.
Meanwhile, plaintiff Elana Gorchov alleges Peloton raised hardware prices by $200 to $700 per device on Oct. 1, 2025. She wants to represent U.S. consumers who bought directly from Peloton between that date and Feb. 24, 2026.
Each tariff refund lawsuit makes claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received and violations of state consumer protection laws. The Peloton lawsuit makes no claims under state consumer protection laws. All plaintiffs demand jury trials and request restitution, disgorgement and interest.
In other ongoing tariff refund lawsuits, Target is facing allegations of generating and retaining a windfall from unlawful government action.
Did you pay higher prices at Walmart, Puma, Abercrombie & Fitch or Peloton while Trump administration tariffs were in effect? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Fuller Jr. of Farrell & Fuller Law; Ian W. Sloss of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP; Stuart A. Davidson of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Matthew D. Patton of Patton Legal P.C.; Gregory Haroutunian and M. Anderson Berry of Emery Reddy P.C.; Brian Levin of Levin Law P.A.; and Matthew R. Wilson, Jared W. Connors and Ryne E. Tipton of Meyer Wilson Werning Co. LPA.
The tariff refund class action lawsuits are Mauldin v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-02642, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Rabadi v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01697, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut; Johnson, et al. v. Puma United North America LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-13987, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Nghiem v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Case No. 2:26-cv-01030, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; and Gorchov v. Peloton Interactive Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-07525, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
