Published
July 17, 2026
This proposed class action claims discount chain Five Below baked IEEPA tariff costs into the prices its shoppers paid during 2025 and now stands to collect a government refund of those same tariffs — without paying customers back. 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. Five Below 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?
Five Below, Inc. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the discount retailer raised prices to pass tariff costs along to shoppers, and now stands to collect government refunds of those same tariffs — while the customers who allegedly paid the inflated prices have no comparable path to get their money back. Five Below has not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.The case is captioned Johns v. Five Below, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-04954-MMB, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The named plaintiff, a New York resident, says she shopped at and bought goods from Five Below during the period the tariffs were in effect. According to the complaint, Five Below relies heavily on imported merchandise — it says a significant majority of its products are made overseas, with China its single largest source — so it acted as the importer of record that paid the tariffs at the border and then set the retail prices its customers paid. The complaint brings claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and a declaratory judgment. Five Below has not been found liable, and the claims remain unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · July 16, 2026
Proposed class action · Johns v. Five Below, Inc.
Allegation
Tariff costs passed to shoppers through higher prices, while Five Below stands to collect government refunds
IEEPA tariffs were struck down; the complaint alleges a potential double recovery it estimates in the tens of millions of dollars, possibly exceeding $100 million
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 Amazon, Puma, Ralph Lauren, Nintendo, Nike, Walmart, and Costco. When a tariff is imposed, the importer of record — here, Five Below, for the imported goods it brings in — 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 require Five Below to return the tariff costs it allegedly passed on to customers, with interest, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Five Below recovers.
Five Below's Heavy Reliance on Imports
A central theme of the complaint is how dependent Five Below is on imported merchandise. Founded in 2002, Five Below built its business on low price points — most items historically priced between $1 and $5, with some value items above $5 — and the complaint says the company operated 1,921 stores across 46 states as of January 31, 2026. The complaint quotes Five Below's own annual report describing a significant majority of its merchandise as manufactured outside the United States, with China its single largest source, and says products representing around 60 percent of its total cost of goods were imported from China.On that basis, the complaint argues Five Below was "particularly vulnerable" to the IEEPA tariffs and that the goods its customers bought were disproportionately exposed to those duties. It alleges that as a direct result of Five Below's pass-through pricing, the plaintiff and class members paid more for tariffed goods than they would have absent the tariffs. The complaint reports Five Below posted record revenue of roughly $4.7 billion in its 2025 fiscal year, and contends the company was able to leverage the tariffs to protect — and even grow — its profits at the expense of its shoppers.
Five Below's Own Statements About Tariffs, Prices, and Refunds
The complaint leans on Five Below's public statements. It says Five Below temporarily paused imports from China and later reduced its China-sourced merchandise by about 10 percent, but that the company told investors it "fully offset" tariff impacts "at the item level through pricing actions, vendor negotiations and product redesign," with pricing contributing a relatively larger share. According to the complaint, Chief Executive Officer Winnie Park described the company's tariff response as including "selective price adjustments."The complaint also points to Five Below's stance on refunds. It quotes a company executive, Daniel Sullivan, telling analysts on Five Below's most recent earnings call that while the company had not publicly sized or quantified the IEEPA tariff figure, it had "taken all the appropriate steps to secure the claims and avail ourselves to these claims," and was "in very good standing here towards the refunds." The complaint alleges Five Below has not publicly confirmed how much it has sought or whether it will pass any refund back to customers, and that it has not returned the increased prices customers paid. Because Five Below is a major importer, the complaint estimates it stands to receive refunds in the tens of millions of dollars, potentially exceeding $100 million — set against an estimated $166 billion in total IEEPA duties collected.
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) — a baseline 10 percent on nearly all imports, 25 percent on most goods from Canada and Mexico, and, the complaint says, rates as high as 145 percent on goods from China. 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. 229 (2026). Shortly after, the President issued an order terminating the tariffs, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection stopped collecting them as of February 24, 2026. The complaint therefore defines the relevant period as February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026.In March 2026, the Court of International Trade ordered in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States that entries subject to IEEPA tariffs be liquidated "without regard to the IEEPA duties," opening the door for importers of record to recover what they paid. Importers can apply to recover the duties through U.S. Customs and Border Protection's CAPE tariff-refund portal — but consumers who shouldered the cost through higher prices have no direct government mechanism to get their money back. That gap between who paid and who can recover is what the lawsuit targets.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings three claims — unjust enrichment, money had and received, and a declaratory judgment — and asks the court to:• Certify the case as a single nationwide class action and appoint the named plaintiff and her counsel to represent the class.
• Order Five Below to disgorge and return the IEEPA-related costs embedded in the elevated prices class members paid, with interest.
• Declare that a business's pursuit or receipt of a government tariff refund is not a precondition for consumers to seek a refund of the tariff-related amounts they paid.
• Award restitution, damages (including any applicable compensatory, statutory, or exemplary damages), pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
All of these are requests for relief tied to unproven allegations; Five Below has not been found to have done anything unlawful, and no money has been awarded.
Is There a Five Below Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Johns v. Five Below, Inc. 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. Five Below 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 single nationwide class: everyone in the United States who purchased, through any Five Below retail channel, a good that was subject to the IEEPA-based tariffs. The complaint identifies the relevant period as February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026 — the window it says the tariffs were in effect.No class has been certified, and the final class definition, if any, could change. The complaint estimates the proposed class includes millions of purchasers nationwide. If you shopped at Five Below during that window, it may be worth holding on to your receipts and order confirmations in case a class is later certified and a claims process opens. There is nothing to file right now.
Beware of Five Below Tariff Refund Scams
Important: whenever a class action is filed against a household-name brand, 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 Five Below tariff refund claim form right now, and Five Below 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.Read the Complaint
The full class action complaint filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is embedded below.What Happens Next?
From here, the case will move through the normal early stages of federal litigation. Five Below 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 Five Below lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, Five Below raised prices to pass IEEPA tariff costs to shoppers and, as an importer of record, stands to collect government refunds of those same tariffs after they were struck down — while its customers have no comparable 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 Five Below tariff refund today is running a scam.Who could be covered?
Generally, U.S. shoppers who bought goods subject to the IEEPA tariffs through any Five Below retail channel between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026. The exact class definition is not final because no class has been certified.Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Johns v. Five Below, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-04954-MMB (E.D. Pa., filed July 16, 2026).• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. 229 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026).
• Order, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-01259 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 4, 2026).
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
Johns v. Five Below, Inc.
Case Number
2:26-cv-04954-MMB
Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Date Filed
July 16, 2026
Claims
Unjust enrichment; money had and received; declaratory judgment
