Published
July 1, 2026
If you bought Columbia, Mountain Hardwear, SOREL, or prAna gear between February 2025 and February 2026, this lawsuit could affect you — though 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. Columbia Sportswear 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?
Columbia Sportswear Company and two of its subsidiaries are facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the Oregon-based outdoor apparel company raised U.S. retail prices to pass tariff costs along to shoppers and is now seeking refunds of those same tariffs from the federal government, while the shoppers who allegedly paid the inflated prices have no comparable path to get their money back. Columbia has not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.The case is captioned Tan v. Columbia Sportswear Company, Case No. 3:26-cv-01170, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland Division). The complaint names Columbia Sportswear Company along with subsidiaries Columbia Brands USA, LLC and Prana Living, LLC — the entities that import Columbia-, Mountain Hardwear-, SOREL-, and prAna-branded products into the United States. The named plaintiff brings the case on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of customers who bought those brands' apparel, footwear, accessories, or equipment during the tariff period. The complaint asserts claims under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, along with unjust enrichment and money had and received. Columbia has not been found liable, and the claims remain unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · June 9, 2026
Proposed class action · Tan v. Columbia Sportswear Company
Allegation
Tariff costs passed to shoppers; Columbia is also seeking ~$80M in government tariff refunds
IEEPA tariffs were struck down; the complaint alleges a potential double recovery
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement announced, no class certified, and no public consumer claim form at this stage
The Tariff "Double Recovery" Problem
The lawsuit fits a wave of consumer cases built on how U.S. tariff law works, alongside similar tariff-refund suits already filed against other major retailers like Ralph Lauren, Puma, IKEA, Nike, Walmart, and Costco. When a tariff is imposed, the importer of record — here, Columbia's importing subsidiaries — pays the duty at the border and typically raises retail prices to recover that cost, so the shopper effectively pays part of the tariff at checkout.When a tariff is later struck down, the refund mechanism gives importers of record — not retail consumers — the direct path to seek reimbursement from the government. The refund flows back to whoever paid the duty at the border, not to the shopper who paid the higher retail price. The complaint argues this lets a large retailer collect higher prices from consumers during the tariff period and then collect a refund afterward, recovering twice for the same economic burden. It asks the court to place any tariff refunds Columbia receives in a constructive trust for the benefit of consumers.
Columbia's Own Statements About Tariffs and Prices
Unlike some tariff-refund suits that rest on inference, this complaint leans heavily on Columbia's own public filings and statements. According to the complaint, Columbia Sportswear disclosed in an SEC quarterly report that "[f]or Spring 2026, we increased U.S. pricing by a high-single digit percent," with similar increases planned for Fall 2026, and stated that its "goal in 2026 is to offset the dollar impact of higher tariffs." The complaint also cites Columbia's disclosure that it had paid approximately $80 million in IEEPA tariffs by the time the Supreme Court struck the tariffs down, and that it has "begun the process of requesting refunds of IEEPA tariffs paid."The complaint further points to a protective refund action that Columbia Brands USA and Prana Living themselves filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in December 2025, seeking "a full refund" of all IEEPA duties they paid. On Columbia's May 2026 earnings call, its Chief Executive Officer said the company "fully intend[s] to pursue every avenue available to secure the refunds that [it] [is] owed." According to the complaint, Columbia has made no public commitment to return any portion of those anticipated refunds to consumers — in contrast to companies like UPS and FedEx, which have said they will pass tariff refunds back to their customers.
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 (IEEPA). On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating those duties in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026). Importers across the country, including Columbia's subsidiaries, became eligible to seek refunds of the duties they had paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.That refund process is what the lawsuit targets. Importers can apply to recover the 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. The complaint cites Federal Reserve Bank of New York research concluding that nearly 90 percent of the tariffs' economic burden fell on U.S. firms and consumers, and notes that Columbia sources most of its products from countries that were subject to the IEEPA tariffs, including Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, and China.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings three claims and asks the court to:• Certify the case as a class action and appoint the named plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.
• Find Columbia liable under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and for unjust enrichment and money had and received, based on the tariff-related price increases it collected from shoppers.
• Award the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $200 per class member under the Oregon UTPA.
• Declare that any IEEPA tariff refunds Columbia receives from the government are held in constructive trust for the class, and order an accounting and disgorgement of those proceeds, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
All of these are requests for relief tied to unproven allegations; Columbia has not been found to have done anything unlawful, and no money has been awarded.
Is There a Columbia Sportswear Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Tan v. Columbia Sportswear Company is a newly filed lawsuit, 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 very beginning of a case, not the end. Columbia 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 the case 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 everyone in the United States who, between February 4, 2025 and February 24, 2026, purchased Columbia-, Mountain Hardwear-, SOREL-, or prAna-branded apparel, footwear, accessories, or equipment from a retail or online channel at a price set or directed by Columbia. No class has been certified, and the final class definition, if any, could change.If you bought gear from any of those brands during that window — whether from a Columbia store or outlet, columbia.com, sorel.com, prana.com, mountainhardwear.com, or a retailer like Dick's Sporting Goods, REI, or Amazon — it may be worth holding on to your receipts and order confirmation emails in case a class is later certified and a claims process opens. There is nothing to file right now.
Beware of Columbia Tariff Refund Scams
Important: whenever a class action is filed against a household-name retailer, scammers send 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 Columbia tariff refund claim form right now, and Columbia 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?
From here, the case will move through the normal early stages of federal litigation. Columbia may file a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the parties may exchange information in discovery, and the plaintiff would, at some point, ask the court to certify a class. Any of these steps can take months, and the case could also be amended, narrowed, or resolved along the way.OpenClassActions.com will continue watching the docket for any major updates, including a motion to dismiss, settlement talks, class certification activity, or any future claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Columbia Sportswear lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, Columbia raised U.S. prices to pass IEEPA tariff costs to shoppers, and is now seeking refunds of the roughly $80 million in tariffs it paid after the tariffs were struck down — while the customers who allegedly paid the higher prices have no comparable government refund process. The allegations are unproven.Is there anything to claim right now?
No. There is no settlement, no fund, and no claim form. Anyone asking you to file a claim or pay a fee for a Columbia tariff refund today is running a scam.Who could be covered?
Generally, U.S. shoppers who bought Columbia-, Mountain Hardwear-, SOREL-, or prAna-branded products between February 4, 2025 and February 24, 2026. The exact class definition is not final because no class has been certified.Sources
• Class Action Allegation Complaint, Tan v. Columbia Sportswear Company, No. 3:26-cv-01170 (D. Or., filed June 9, 2026).• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026).
• Columbia Brands USA, LLC v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 25-00855 (Ct. Int'l Trade, filed Dec. 21, 2025).
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
Tan v. Columbia Sportswear Company
Case Number
3:26-cv-01170
Court
U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (Portland Division)
Date Filed
June 9, 2026
Claims
Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act; unjust enrichment; money had and received
