Published
July 22, 2026
If you bought Lululemon apparel between February 2025 and February 2026, this new lawsuit could affect you — though there is no settlement or claim form yet, and nothing to file right now.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Lululemon 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?
Lululemon USA, Inc. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the athleisure retailer 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. Lululemon has not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.The case is captioned Alsaady v. Lululemon USA, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-05708, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma Division) — the district where Lululemon's U.S. headquarters is located. The complaint is brought on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of customers who bought Lululemon products subject to the tariffs, along with Michigan and New York subclasses. It asserts claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and New York General Business Law § 349, along with unjust enrichment, money had and received, and a request for a constructive trust. Lululemon has not been found liable, and the claims remain unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · June 30, 2026
Proposed class action · Alsaady v. Lululemon USA, Inc.
Allegation
Tariff costs passed to shoppers; Lululemon is also seeking 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 Columbia Sportswear, Ralph Lauren, Puma, Fabletics, Nike, IKEA, Walmart, and Costco. When a tariff is imposed, the importer of record 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 complaint alleges that consumers lack standing and any statutory cause of action in the U.S. Court of International Trade to recover unlawfully collected tariffs, and that federal law grants that right exclusively to the importer of record, regardless of who ultimately bore the economic burden. 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 impose a constructive trust over any tariff refunds Lululemon receives, for the benefit of consumers.
Lululemon's Own Statements About Tariffs and Prices
According to the complaint, Lululemon publicly acknowledged that the tariffs raised its costs and that it responded with price increases. The complaint alleges that Lululemon's Chief Financial Officer announced in June 2025 that the company planned to implement strategic price increases in response to tariffs, and that its Chief Executive Officer later confirmed in September 2025 that tariffs would result in consumer price increases. Public reporting cited in the complaint estimated that tariffs and related import measures would reduce Lululemon's gross profit by roughly $240 million.The complaint further alleges that on January 8, 2026, Lululemon commenced its own action in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging the legality of the IEEPA tariffs and seeking a refund of the duties it had already paid — Lululemon USA Inc. v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-00465 (Ct. Int'l Trade). According to the complaint, Lululemon has not committed to return any portion of those anticipated refunds to the consumers who allegedly bore the tariff costs through higher prices, in contrast to some other companies that have announced tariff-refund programs for 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. 229 (2026). The IEEPA tariffs were terminated effective February 24, 2026, and importers across the country 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 U.S. firms and consumers bore the bulk of the economic burden of the 2025 tariffs, and alleges that Lululemon manufactures the majority of its products in countries that were subject to the IEEPA tariffs — including Vietnam, which the complaint says accounts for roughly 40 percent of Lululemon's products, along with Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings six counts and asks the court to:• Certify the case as a class action and appoint the plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.
• Find Lululemon liable under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and New York General Business Law § 349, and for unjust enrichment and money had and received, based on the tariff-related price increases it collected from shoppers.
• Declare that consumers are entitled to a return of the IEEPA amounts they paid through higher prices, and enter injunctive relief.
• Impose a constructive trust over any IEEPA tariff refunds Lululemon receives from the government, and order restitution, disgorgement, and an accounting of those proceeds, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
All of these are requests for relief tied to unproven allegations; Lululemon has not been found to have done anything unlawful, and no money has been awarded.
Is There a Lululemon Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Alsaady v. Lululemon USA, 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. Lululemon 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 purchased Lululemon products subject to the IEEPA tariffs between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026, plus Michigan and New York subclasses for shoppers who bought in those states during the same window. No class has been certified, and the final class definition, if any, could change.If you bought Lululemon apparel during that period — whether from a Lululemon store, lululemon.com, or another retailer — 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 Lululemon 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 Lululemon tariff refund claim form right now, and Lululemon 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. Lululemon may file a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the parties may exchange information in discovery, and the plaintiffs 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 Lululemon lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, Lululemon raised U.S. prices to pass IEEPA tariff costs to shoppers, and is now seeking refunds of the 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 Lululemon tariff refund today is running a scam.Who could be covered?
Generally, U.S. shoppers who bought Lululemon products subject to the IEEPA tariffs between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026, with separate Michigan and New York subclasses. The exact class definition is not final because no class has been certified.Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Alsaady v. Lululemon USA, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-05708 (W.D. Wash., filed June 30, 2026).• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. 229 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026).
• Lululemon USA Inc. v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-00465 (Ct. Int'l Trade, filed Jan. 8, 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
Alsaady v. Lululemon USA, Inc.
Case Number
3:26-cv-05708
Court
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Tacoma Division)
Date Filed
June 30, 2026
Claims
Washington CPA; Michigan CPA; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349; unjust enrichment; money had and received; constructive trust
