Published
August 12, 2026
Updated
August 12, 2026
A new class action accuses the maker of Rao's pasta sauce, Goldfish crackers and Campbell's soup of building tariff costs into its grocery prices, then keeping the government refund after those tariffs were struck down. If you bought those products during the tariff period, the case is about your money — but it was filed on August 11, 2026, and there is no settlement or claim form yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. The Campbell's Company has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
The Campbell's Company — the maker of Campbell's soups, Rao's pasta sauces, Pepperidge Farm Goldfish crackers, Prego and Pace — is facing a proposed class action alleging that it raised the prices of its food products to recover tariffs it paid at the border, and is now positioned to recover those same tariffs a second time as a federal refund, while the shoppers who allegedly absorbed the cost at the register have no comparable path to get their money back. Campbell's has not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.The case is captioned McCormick v. The Campbell's Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-10134. It was filed on August 11, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage — the district where Campbell's is headquartered. The complaint brings claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the common-law doctrines of unjust enrichment and money had and received, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class.
Status
Complaint Filed · August 11, 2026
McCormick v. The Campbell's Company · D.N.J., Camden Vicinage · No. 1:26-cv-10134
Products at Issue
Campbell's food products made or packaged with imported goods — the complaint names Rao's sauces and Goldfish crackers
Rao's sauce is imported from Italy; canned soup and snack packaging use imported steel and aluminum
Allegation
Tariff costs passed to grocery shoppers; Campbell's is positioned to recover a government tariff refund
IEEPA tariffs were struck down in February 2026; the complaint alleges a potential double recovery
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement announced, no class certified, and no consumer claim form at this stage
The Tariff "Double Recovery" Problem
The case joins a wave of consumer suits built on the mechanics of U.S. tariff law, alongside tariff-refund cases already filed against J.M. Smucker, Amazon, Target, IKEA, Ford, and Zara. When a tariff is imposed, the importer of record pays the duty at the border and typically raises prices to recover that cost, so the shopper effectively pays part of the tariff at checkout.When the tariff is later struck down, the refund runs back to whoever paid the duty at the border — the importer — not to the customer who paid the higher shelf price. The complaint argues that this lets a company collect the tariff once from consumers during the tariff period and again from the government afterward, and it asks the court to order Campbell's to return the money.
Campbell's is a notable target for that theory because its products are grocery staples rather than discretionary purchases. Soup, sauce and crackers are bought repeatedly by the same households, which is the complaint's basis for arguing that small per-package amounts add up across a proposed nationwide class.
What the Complaint Points To
Many tariff pass-through suits rest largely on inference — the tariff went up, the price went up. This complaint leans instead on Campbell's own public statements to investors, which discussed tariff costs and pricing in unusually direct terms.According to the complaint, Campbell's finance chief said on a June 2025 earnings call that the company was working closely with suppliers, including its Rao's manufacturing partner in Italy, to mitigate tariffs, and that its plan included "where absolutely necessary, consideration of surgical pricing actions." In its September 3, 2025 fourth-quarter results release, Campbell's told investors it faced substantial input cost pressures driven primarily by tariffs, projected gross tariffs at roughly 4% of its cost of products sold for fiscal 2026, and said it expected to mitigate about 60% of that impact through inventory management, supplier collaboration, alternative sourcing, productivity and cost savings, and "where absolutely necessary, surgical and responsible pricing actions."
The complaint also cites Wall Street Journal reporting from December 9, 2025 that tariff-related price increases weighed on Campbell's ready-to-serve soup business and contributed to market share declines. The plaintiff's reading of those statements — that the increases were passed through to shoppers as a deliberate pricing choice — is a characterization, not a finding by any court. Campbell's has not responded to the complaint on the public record.
On the refund side, the complaint alleges that Campbell's told investors on a June 8, 2026 earnings call that it expected a fourth-quarter tariff refund benefit of roughly $0.03 to $0.04 per share, with some refunds coming directly and a smaller portion arriving through vendors. That allegation is the hinge of the case: it is the complaint's basis for saying the refund side of the double recovery is not hypothetical.
Why Rao's and Goldfish?
Campbell's acquired Sovos Brands, the parent of Rao's, in a $2.7 billion deal that closed in March 2024. Most Rao's sauce is still made in Italy, and the complaint alleges Campbell's serves as the importer of record for those shipments through an Italian co-manufacturing partner in which it has agreed to take a minority stake. That makes the sauce a clean example for the complaint's theory: a finished imported good, brought in by Campbell's, sold at retail during the tariff period.The Goldfish side of the case works differently. The complaint does not allege the crackers themselves are imported. It alleges the steel and aluminum used in Campbell's packaging and soup cans is imported and tariffed, so the duty is embedded in the cost of a domestically made product. Campbell's has told investors that steel and aluminum account for roughly 60% of its gross tariff exposure, and that it imports the material because domestic supply is not available in the volumes it needs.
That 60% figure cuts in an awkward direction for the case, and the complaint acknowledges the underlying overlap. The steel and aluminum duties were imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which rests on separate statutory authority and was not part of the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling. The complaint alleges those imports were subject to both Section 232 and IEEPA duties, but only the IEEPA portion is refundable under the decision. Sorting out how much of Campbell's tariff cost — and therefore how much of any price increase — is actually traceable to refundable IEEPA duties is one of the harder questions the case would face.
The Consumer Protection Claims
The complaint pleads two statutory counts. The first is under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., where the theory rests on unfairness rather than a false statement: it alleges that charging consumers for tariffs that a court has since held were never lawfully imposed, then retaining that money while eligible to recover the duties from the government, offends public policy and causes substantial injury consumers could not avoid. It also alleges an omission — that Campbell's did not disclose it could later recoup the same tariff costs from the federal government.The second count is under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 56:8-1 et seq., which reaches "unconscionable commercial practice" as well as knowing concealment of material facts. New Jersey law is in play because Campbell's is headquartered in Camden, and the complaint alleges the pricing decisions at issue were made there.
The remaining counts are equitable. Unjust enrichment seeks restitution of the tariff-related amounts the complaint alleges Campbell's collected through elevated prices. Money had and received is pleaded in the alternative and is aimed specifically at the refund proceeds — the argument being that money the government returns to Campbell's represents, in equity, a return of costs that consumers actually bore. The complaint seeks actual damages, treble damages under both consumer protection statutes, restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys' fees. Those are requests tied to unproven allegations; no money has been awarded and no finding of liability has been made.
The IEEPA Tariffs and the Supreme Court Ruling
Beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed tariffs on imports from numerous countries by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including "reciprocal" tariffs and separate trafficking-related duties, at rates the complaint describes as ranging from 10% to 145%. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating those duties.The refund machinery followed quickly. In March 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate unliquidated entries without regard to IEEPA duties and to reliquidate entries where liquidation was not yet final. According to a CBP declaration cited in the complaint, roughly $166 billion in IEEPA duties and estimated duty deposits had been collected as of early March 2026.
Importers can apply to recover those duties — for example, through U.S. Customs and Border Protection's tariff-refund portal — but consumers who shouldered the cost through higher prices have no direct government mechanism to get their money back. Closing that gap is what this lawsuit and the others like it are built around. We have written separately about where the refund money is actually going.
Is There a Campbell's Settlement Yet?
No. This matters: McCormick v. The Campbell's Company is a lawsuit filed on August 11, 2026, not a settlement.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout, and no deadline to act.
• Consumers do not need to do anything at this stage.
The filing of a complaint is the beginning of a case, not the end. Campbell's has not been found liable simply because a lawsuit was filed, and the case remains pending unless and until a newer docket entry says otherwise. If it is ever resolved through a settlement, or a class is certified, a formal claims process with its own eligibility rules and deadlines would be announced separately.
Who Could Be Affected?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of people in the United States who bought products imported into the country by or for Campbell's from nations subject to IEEPA duties, or products manufactured using imported components or materials, on which Campbell's paid, deposited or accrued those duties. Judges, Campbell's and its affiliates, and counsel for both sides are excluded.Two things about that definition are worth noticing. It is written around what Campbell's imported rather than around a list of brands, so its real scope depends on records only Campbell's has. And the complaint does not define the "Class Period" it repeatedly refers to, which is the kind of gap a defendant typically raises early. No class has been certified, and the definition, product scope and time period could all change.
If you bought Campbell's, Rao's, Pepperidge Farm, Prego or Pace products during the tariff period, keeping receipts and store loyalty-account purchase history costs nothing and could matter if a class is later certified and a claims process opens. There is nothing to file right now.
Beware of Campbell's Tariff Refund Scams
Important: when a class action is filed against a household-name brand, scammers follow with fake "tariff refund" texts, emails and calls asking shoppers to click a link, confirm bank details, or pay a small "processing fee." There is no Campbell's, Rao's or Goldfish tariff refund claim form right now, and Campbell's has not announced any consumer refund program. A legitimate claims process — if one ever exists — would be run by a court-appointed settlement administrator, would be free to participate in, and would never ask for your banking passwords, gift cards, or up-front fees.What Happens Next?
Campbell's now has a deadline to respond to the complaint, and in cases of this type the first move is usually a motion to dismiss. The arguments to expect are the familiar ones from the rest of the tariff wave: whether a shopper who paid a shelf price has standing to sue over a duty someone else paid, whether the consumer protection statutes reach a pricing decision that was never misrepresented, and whether the pass-through can be traced product by product at all.This complaint carries an additional early vulnerability. Several paragraphs in its class allegations section describe deceptive apartment rental pricing and tenants signing leases — language evidently carried over from an unrelated filing and left in. It has nothing to do with soup or tariffs, and it is the sort of drafting error a defendant will point to and a plaintiff will typically fix through an amended complaint.
If the case survives that stage, the parties would exchange information in discovery and the plaintiff would eventually ask the court to certify a class. Each step can take months, and the case could be amended, narrowed, consolidated with other tariff suits, or resolved along the way. OpenClassActions.com will keep watching the docket for major updates, including a ruling on any motion to dismiss, class certification activity, settlement talks, or any future claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this mean my Rao's sauce was overpriced?
That is what the complaint alleges, and it has not been proven. The complaint's position is that Campbell's 2025 price increases carried IEEPA tariff costs that a court has since held were never lawfully imposed. Campbell's has not conceded that any particular jar or package price included a tariff component, and no court has decided the question.Why can Campbell's get a refund but I can't?
Tariff refunds run to the importer of record — the party that actually paid the duty to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A shopper who paid a higher shelf price is not the importer and has no standing in that refund process. That structural gap is the entire premise of this lawsuit and the others like it.Is this related to the Goldfish sugar labeling case?
No. Campbell's has separately faced litigation over sugar content claims on some of its products. That is a labeling dispute and is unrelated to this one, which is about tariff costs inside the price rather than the accuracy of anything printed on the package.Why was the case filed in New Jersey if the plaintiff shops in Pennsylvania?
The complaint pleads both. It sues in New Jersey because Campbell's is headquartered in Camden and alleges the pricing decisions were made there, which supports venue and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act count. The Pennsylvania statute comes in because the purchases at issue were made in Pennsylvania. Whether both statutes can carry a nationwide class is a question for the certification stage.Should I do anything now?
Nothing is required. Keeping proof of purchase costs nothing and could matter later if a class is certified, but there is no form to submit, no deadline, and no one legitimate asking you for money or account details today.Sources
• Class Action Complaint, McCormick v. The Campbell's Company, No. 1:26-cv-10134 (D.N.J. filed Aug. 11, 2026).• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. 229 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026).
• Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-01259 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 4 and Mar. 5, 2026), as cited in the complaint.
• The Campbell's Company, "Campbell's Reports Fourth Quarter Fiscal 2025 Results; Provides Full-Year Fiscal 2026 Guidance" (Sept. 3, 2025).
• The Campbell's Company, "Campbell Completes Acquisition of Sovos Brands, Inc." (Mar. 12, 2024).
• The Wall Street Journal, "Tariffs Dent Campbell's Soup Sales" (Dec. 9, 2025), as cited in the complaint.
• Food Business News, "Tariffs keep hitting Campbell's" (Sept. 5, 2025), as cited in the complaint.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Proposed Class Action
Case Title
McCormick v. The Campbell's Company
Case Number
1:26-cv-10134
Court
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey — Camden Vicinage
Date Filed
August 11, 2026
Claims
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; unjust enrichment; money had and received
