U.S. shoppers who bought Levi’s jeans and other Levi Strauss & Co. products at prices raised during the 2025–2026 IEEPA tariff period may be covered by proposed class actions alleging Levi Strauss passed tariff costs on to customers, then kept the government refunds after the Supreme Court struck the tariffs down. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes class action complaints. The statements below are unproven allegations. Levi Strauss & Co. 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 law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP announced on October 20, 2026 that it has filed a proposed nationwide class action against Levi Strauss & Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, on behalf of consumers who bought Levi products at prices the firm says were raised to cover tariff costs. The firm’s announcement does not give a case number or filing date. It is at least the third proposed consumer class action against the San Francisco jeans maker over the same issue, following Iglesias v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 3:26-cv-06100, filed June 18, 2026 in the same federal court, and Wilson v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 2:26-cv-01904, filed August 28, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.All three suits rest on the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The ruling cleared the way for importers of record, the companies that paid the duties to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to recover them. Shoppers who paid higher shelf prices have no comparable refund process with the government. The plaintiffs argue that Levi Strauss collected the tariff cost twice, once from customers through higher prices and again from the government through refunds, and they ask the courts to make it return the consumer share.
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.
What Levi Strauss Has Disclosed About Its Tariff Refunds
On its July 8, 2026 second-quarter earnings call, Levi Strauss Chief Financial Officer Harmit Singh said the company’s guidance did not assume any benefit from potential tariff refunds, “which are approximately $80 million paid to date.” Asked about the refunds, he said: “It’s substantial. We haven’t figured out what to do with it, because that’ll depend on the environment and a whole bunch of things.”Three months later the money had arrived. Levi Strauss’s October 7, 2026 earnings release for the third quarter ended August 30, 2026 reports IEEPA tariff refunds of $79 million, recorded as a reduction to cost of goods sold, plus $5 million of interest income. The release says the refunds added 490 basis points to gross margin and $0.16 to earnings per share, and that the company redeployed part of the benefit to support the business, “including additional promotion and marketing expenditures,” which added about $25 million of expense in the quarter. For the full year, Levi Strauss says it is redeploying approximately $60 million of the refunds, about $35 million of it in the fourth quarter. The release does not describe any refund or price adjustment for customers.
What the Lawsuits Allege
The June complaint in Iglesias traces a series of public statements in which Levi Strauss executives tied pricing decisions to tariffs. It quotes Singh telling a September 2025 investor conference that Levi was pursuing “more targeted pricing,” and telling investors on the October 2025 earnings call that the company’s tariff “mitigation initiatives include promotion optimization, targeted pricing action, vendor negotiation, and further supply chain diversification.” It also cites a February 2026 Wall Street Journal report that Levi’s Ribcage Straight Ankle women’s jeans went up $10 to $108 and its original fit men’s jeans went up $5 to $84.50. According to the firm’s announcement, the newest complaint also cites an April 2025 remark by Chief Executive Officer Michelle Gass that the company would be “surgical” with price increases.From those statements, the plaintiffs allege that Levi Strauss passed at least part of its IEEPA tariff costs through to shoppers, and that keeping the government refunds on top of those price increases is an unfair windfall. The Louisiana complaint adds that Levi Strauss has not set up any process to return tariff-related price premiums to the consumers who paid them. These are the plaintiffs’ characterizations of the company’s conduct, and no court has decided whether any tariff cost was actually passed on to buyers or what share of it.
How the Three Cases Differ
Iglesias v. Levi Strauss & Co. was filed June 18, 2026 in the Northern District of California by a California buyer of Levi’s 514 and 505 jeans. It proposes a class of all persons in the United States who bought goods from Levi between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026 on which Levi raised prices, and pleads unjust enrichment, money had and received, California’s Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and a request for a declaratory judgment. It seeks restitution, damages, an injunction and declaratory relief. Counsel include Emery Reddy, PC and Milberg, PLLC.Wilson v. Levi Strauss & Co. was filed August 28, 2026 in the Eastern District of Louisiana by a buyer who ordered Levi’s shorts on levi.com two days after the Supreme Court’s ruling. It proposes a nationwide class of people who paid higher prices for Levi goods because of the IEEPA tariffs and have not been refunded, plus a Louisiana subclass, and pleads unjust enrichment, enrichment without cause under Louisiana Civil Code article 2298, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Counsel are Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC and Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
The Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy suit, announced October 20, 2026, is in the San Francisco Division of the Northern District of California, the same court as Iglesias. The firm’s announcement describes a proposed nationwide class of consumers who paid Levi’s tariff-related price increases and says the refund money should go back to the people who paid it, but it does not set out the class period or the specific legal claims.
What Happens Next?
In a case like this, the defendant answers or moves to dismiss the complaint before the plaintiffs can ask the court to certify a class. Two of the Levi Strauss cases are in the same federal district, and when similar suits are pending side by side, courts often relate or consolidate them; no such order in these cases had been reported as of October 21, 2026. Tariff refund suits against other brands are at a similarly early stage, with Dyson, for example, moving to dismiss the suit against it in October 2026. OCA tracks every consumer tariff refund suit on its tariff class actions page.Questions
What are the Levi Strauss tariff refund lawsuits about?
Three proposed class actions allege that Levi Strauss & Co. raised U.S. prices to cover tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), then kept the refunds of those tariffs after the Supreme Court ruled them unlawful on February 20, 2026. Two were filed in federal court in California and one in Louisiana. Levi Strauss has not been found liable, and the allegations are unproven.
How much did Levi Strauss receive in tariff refunds?
Levi Strauss reported IEEPA tariff refunds of $79 million, recorded in cost of goods sold, plus $5 million of interest income for its third quarter ended August 30, 2026. Its October 7, 2026 earnings release says the company redeployed refunds into the business, including additional promotion and marketing spending, and expects to redeploy about $60 million for the full year.
Who could be covered by the Levi’s tariff class actions?
The June 2026 California complaint proposes a class of everyone in the United States who bought goods from Levi between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026 on which Levi raised prices. The Louisiana complaint proposes a nationwide class of buyers who paid higher prices because of the IEEPA tariffs and were not refunded, plus a Louisiana subclass. No class has been certified, so none of these definitions is final.
Is there a Levi’s tariff refund settlement or claim form?
There is no settlement, claim form, payout or deadline. The cases are at the complaint stage. Money would become available only if a court rules for the plaintiffs or the parties reach a settlement that a court approves.
What did Levi’s CFO say about the tariff refunds?
On Levi Strauss’s July 8, 2026 earnings call, Chief Financial Officer Harmit Singh said the company had paid approximately $80 million in IEEPA tariffs and, asked about the refunds, said: “It’s substantial. We haven’t figured out what to do with it, because that’ll depend on the environment and a whole bunch of things.”
Sources
• Class action complaint, Iglesias v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 3:26-cv-06100 (N.D. Cal., filed June 18, 2026)• Class action complaint, Wilson v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 2:26-cv-01904 (E.D. La., filed August 28, 2026)
• Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy announcement via Business Wire, October 20, 2026
• Levi Strauss & Co. third-quarter 2026 earnings release (Form 8-K, Exhibit 99.1, October 7, 2026)
• Levi Strauss second-quarter 2026 earnings call transcript, Investing.com, July 8, 2026
• “Tariffs and the Continuing Wave of ‘Double Recovery’ Consumer Class Actions”, The D&O Diary, September 22, 2026
• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287 (U.S. February 20, 2026)
