Published
July 1, 2026
If you bought Puma apparel, footwear, or accessories 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. Puma 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?
Puma United North America, LLC is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the athletic apparel and footwear company raised prices to pass tariff costs along to shoppers and has since sought a refund 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. Puma has not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.The case is captioned Lemense v. Puma United North America, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-12654-JEK, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The named plaintiff, an Illinois resident who bought hoodies at a Puma outlet store, brings the case on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of Puma customers. According to the complaint, Puma sources the large majority of its apparel and footwear from Asia — including China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India — and was required to pay tariffs when those goods entered the country. The complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received. Puma has not been found liable, and the claims remain unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · June 11, 2026
Proposed class action · Lemense v. Puma United North America, LLC
Allegation
Tariff costs passed to shoppers; Puma has also sought a government tariff refund
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, IKEA, Nike, and Walmart. When a tariff is imposed, the importer of record — Puma, in this case — 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 prevent Puma from retaining both the consumer overcharges and any government refund.
Has Puma Already Sought a Tariff Refund?
The complaint points to a protective refund action Puma itself filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade on December 4, 2025 — Puma United North America, LLC v. United States, et al., Court No. 25-00355. In that filing, Puma affirmatively alleged it was "the importer of record of merchandise subject to the IEEPA Duties and paid the IEEPA Duties on its imported goods," and asked the court to order "a full refund, with interest as required by law" of the duties it had paid. If accurate, the complaint argues that puts Puma on a path to collect the tariff cost twice: once from consumers through higher prices, and again from the government through the refund program, potentially including interest. Puma has not confirmed the status of that refund request, and this characterization is an allegation, not an established fact.Puma's Own Disclosures About Tariff Costs and Pricing
The complaint cites Puma's own public statements about the financial impact of the tariffs and its response to them. In a July 24, 2025 release, Puma disclosed that "the U.S. Tariffs are expected to have a mitigated negative impact in 2025 of around €80 million on gross profit." A later Puma Q4 & FY2025 investor document narrowed that estimate, stating Puma had "managed to limit the mitigated impact of the tariffs to around €50 million on gross profit in 2025" and identifying "the introduction of selective pricing adjustments, starting in the fourth quarter of 2025" as one of its mitigation measures. In its subsequent full-year 2025 results, Puma reported that "lower sourcing costs including duties" had become a tailwind that "fully offset[ ] the negative impact from U.S. Tariffs." The complaint argues these disclosures show Puma's pricing decisions were tied to tariff costs it was simultaneously working to recover from the government.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 Puma, 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 through U.S. Customs and Border Protection's CAPE tariff-refund portal, which had processed roughly $35.46 billion of the approximately $166 billion in IEEPA duties collected as of early May 2026 — but consumers who shouldered the cost through higher prices have no direct government mechanism to get their money back.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings two claims and asks the court to:• Certify the case as a class action and appoint the named plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.
• Declare that any tariff refund, credit, or reliquidation proceeds Puma receives from the government are held in constructive trust for the class, and enjoin Puma from dissipating, transferring, or commingling those proceeds.
• Order an equitable accounting of the IEEPA duties Puma paid and any refund applications and proceeds.
• Award restitution, disgorgement of any unjust enrichment, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
All of these are requests for relief tied to unproven allegations; Puma has not been found to have done anything unlawful, and no money has been awarded.
Is There a Puma Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Lemense v. Puma United North America, LLC 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. Puma 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 customers who purchased Puma-branded apparel, footwear, accessories, or equipment at a price set, established, or directed by Puma between February 4, 2025 and February 24, 2026 — the period the complaint says the IEEPA tariffs were in effect. No class has been certified, and the final class definition, if any, could change.If you bought Puma products during that window from a Puma store, Puma.com, or another channel where Puma set or influenced the price, 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 Puma 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 Puma tariff refund claim form right now, and Puma 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. Puma 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 Puma lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, Puma raised prices to pass IEEPA tariff costs to shoppers, and separately sought a refund of those same tariff payments from the federal government 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 Puma tariff refund today is running a scam.Who could be covered?
Generally, U.S. purchasers of Puma-branded goods who paid higher prices on tariffed items during the class period. The exact class definition is not final because no class has been certified.Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Lemense v. Puma United North America, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-12654-JEK (D. Mass., filed June 11, 2026).• Complaint, Puma United North America, LLC v. United States, et al., Court No. 25-00355 (Ct. Int'l Trade, filed Dec. 4, 2025).
• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (U.S. Feb. 20, 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
Lemense v. Puma United North America, LLC
Case Number
1:26-cv-12654-JEK
Court
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston)
Date Filed
June 11, 2026
Claims
Unjust enrichment; money had and received
