Published
August 4, 2026
A proposed class action accuses the maker of Folgers and Café Bustelo of building tariff costs into its coffee prices, then keeping the government refund once those tariffs were struck down. If you bought Smucker coffee in 2025, this case is about your money — but 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. The J.M. Smucker Company 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 J.M. Smucker Company, the maker of Folgers, Café Bustelo, and Dunkin' packaged coffee, is facing a proposed class action alleging that it raised its coffee prices to recover tariffs it paid at the border, and is now positioned to recover those same tariffs a second time as a federal refund — while the shoppers who allegedly absorbed the cost at the register have no comparable path to get their money back. Smucker has not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.The case is captioned Mulconrey v. The J.M. Smucker Company. It was filed in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois on May 21, 2026 as Case No. 2026LA000512, and Smucker removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 24, 2026, where it is docketed as Case No. 1:26-cv-08832. The complaint brings claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and for unjust enrichment, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and an Illinois subclass.
Status
Complaint Filed · May 21, 2026
Removed to federal court July 24, 2026 · Mulconrey v. The J.M. Smucker Company
Products at Issue
Smucker coffee — Café Bustelo, Dunkin', Folgers, Medaglia D'Oro, Pilon
The complaint alleges tariff costs were built into the prices of these brands
Allegation
Tariff costs passed to coffee buyers; Smucker is positioned to recover 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 consumer claim form at this stage
The Tariff "Double Recovery" Problem
The case is part of a wave of consumer suits built on the mechanics of U.S. tariff law, alongside tariff-refund cases already filed against Amazon, Zara, Columbia Sportswear, IKEA, and Ford. When a tariff is imposed, the importer of record pays the duty at the border and typically raises prices to recover that cost, so the shopper effectively pays part of the tariff at checkout.When the tariff is later struck down, the refund runs back to whoever paid the duty at the border — the importer — not to the customer who paid the higher shelf price. The complaint argues that this lets a company collect the tariff once from consumers during the tariff period and again from the government afterward, and it asks the court to order Smucker to return the money.
What sets this case apart from most of the retail suits is that it is aimed at a grocery staple rather than a discretionary purchase. Coffee is bought repeatedly by the same households, which is the complaint's basis for arguing that even small per-package amounts add up across a proposed nationwide class.
What the Complaint Points To
Many of the tariff pass-through suits rest largely on inference — the tariff went up, the price went up. This complaint instead points to Smucker's own public statements about tariffs and coffee pricing.According to the complaint, Smucker said in its fiscal 2025 fourth-quarter prepared management remarks in June 2025 that it had increased prices to offset the IEEPA tariffs. The complaint then cites Bloomberg reporting from November 25, 2025 that Smucker would skip a further coffee price increase and absorb some of the cost instead — which the complaint reads as confirmation that the earlier increases had already been passed through to shoppers.
Those are the plaintiff's characterizations of Smucker's statements, not findings by any court. Smucker has not responded to them on the public record, and the inference the complaint draws from them has not been tested.
The Illinois Consumer Fraud Claim
The lead claim is brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. The complaint's theory is one of unfairness rather than a false statement: it alleges that charging consumers for tariffs that were unlawful, and then retaining that money while being eligible to recover the duties from the government, offends public policy and causes substantial injury to consumers who could not have avoided the charge.The complaint also pleads unjust enrichment as a separate count, seeking restitution of the tariff-related amounts it alleges Smucker collected through elevated prices. It asks for actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. These are requests for relief tied to unproven allegations; no money has been awarded and no finding of liability has been made.
The IEEPA Tariffs and the Supreme Court Ruling
Beginning in early 2025, the federal government imposed tariffs on imports from numerous countries by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including the "Reciprocal" tariffs and separate trafficking-related duties. 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 of record 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. According to the complaint, the named plaintiff bought Folgers products on multiple occasions after the tariffs took effect, including one purchase in late November 2025 at a warehouse club in Illinois, at prices the complaint alleges were inflated by Smucker's pass-through tariff costs.
Is There a Smucker Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Mulconrey v. The J.M. Smucker Company is a pending 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 beginning of a case, not the end. Smucker 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 it 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 people in the United States who were charged IEEPA tariffs by Smucker within three years before the case was filed, through the date of class certification, plus an Illinois subclass of the same. The coffee brands identified in the complaint are Café Bustelo, Dunkin', Folgers, Medaglia D'Oro, and Pilon.No class has been certified, and the final class definition, product list, and time period could change. If you bought any of those coffee products during that window, it may be worth keeping receipts and store-account purchase history in case a class is later certified and a claims process opens. There is nothing to file right now.
Beware of Folgers Tariff Refund Scams
Important: when a class action is filed against a household-name brand, scammers follow with 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 Smucker or Folgers tariff refund claim form right now, and Smucker 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?
Now that the case is in federal court, Smucker is expected to respond to the complaint, most likely with a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff may contest whether the case belongs in federal court at all. If it survives those early stages, the parties would exchange information in discovery and the plaintiff would eventually ask the court to certify a class. Each of those steps can take months, and the case could be amended, narrowed, remanded, or resolved along the way.OpenClassActions.com will keep watching the docket for major updates, including a ruling on any motion to dismiss, class certification activity, settlement talks, or any future claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this mean my Folgers was overpriced?
That is what the complaint alleges, and it has not been proven. The complaint's position is that Smucker's 2025 price increases carried IEEPA tariff costs that a court has since held were never lawfully imposed. Smucker has not conceded that any particular package price included a tariff component, and no court has decided the question.Why can Smucker get a refund but I can't?
Tariff refunds run to the importer of record — the party that actually paid the duty to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A shopper who paid a higher shelf price is not the importer and has no standing in that refund process. Closing that gap through a consumer claim is the entire point of this lawsuit and the others like it.Is this the same as the Folgers serving-size lawsuit?
No. Smucker has separately faced litigation over how many servings its Folgers canisters produce. That is a labeling case and is unrelated to this one, which is about tariff costs in the price rather than the accuracy of anything printed on the container.Should I do anything now?
Nothing is required. Keeping proof of purchase costs nothing and could matter later if a class is certified, but there is no form to submit, no deadline, and no one legitimate asking you for money or account details today.Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Mulconrey v. The J.M. Smucker Company, No. 2026LA000512 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Will Cnty., filed May 21, 2026), removed as No. 1:26-cv-08832 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2026).• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026).
• The J.M. Smucker Co., Fiscal Year 2025 Fourth Quarter Earnings: Prepared Management Remarks (June 10, 2025), as cited in the complaint.
• Bloomberg, "Smucker Nixes Increase to Coffee Prices on Tariff Relief" (Nov. 25, 2025), as cited in the complaint.
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
Mulconrey v. The J.M. Smucker Company
Case Number
1:26-cv-08832 (removed from No. 2026LA000512)
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois — removed from the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois
Date Filed
May 21, 2026 — removed July 24, 2026
Claims
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; unjust enrichment
