Published
July 2, 2026
If you bought UniFi cameras, access readers, or other Ubiquiti gear on ui.com since October 2025 and paid a "Tariff Surcharge Fee" at checkout, 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. Ubiquiti 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?
Ubiquiti Inc., the maker of UniFi networking equipment, cameras, and access-control products, is facing a proposed class action lawsuit over the "Tariff Surcharge Fee" it began adding to orders on its ui.com online store in late 2025. The complaint alleges the surcharge — typically 7.2% of the retail price, shown as a separate line item at checkout — exceeded the tariffs Ubiquiti actually owed, and that Ubiquiti never refunded any of it even after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the underlying IEEPA tariffs and importers became entitled to government refunds. Ubiquiti has not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.The case is captioned Higgins v. Ubiquiti Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00659, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, where Ubiquiti is incorporated. The named plaintiff, a Michigan resident who purchased UniFi access readers on ui.com, alleges he was charged more than $100 in tariff surcharges across three orders. The complaint asserts claims under the New York General Business Law and, in the alternative, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, along with claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and declaratory relief. Ubiquiti has not responded to the complaint, and the claims remain unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · June 4, 2026
Proposed class action · Higgins v. Ubiquiti Inc. · District of Delaware
Allegation
7.2% "Tariff Surcharge Fee" exceeded actual tariffs and was never refunded
IEEPA tariffs were struck down in February 2026; the complaint alleges Ubiquiti kept the surcharges while entitled to government refunds
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement announced, no class certified, and no consumer claim form at this stage
The 7.2% "Tariff Surcharge Fee" at Checkout
According to the complaint, Ubiquiti began adding a Tariff Surcharge Fee to certain products sold on ui.com around October 2025, after the federal government imposed tariffs on imports from Vietnam and China — where Ubiquiti's contract manufacturers make most of its hardware. The surcharge was typically 7.2% of the retail price and appeared as its own line item at checkout, on top of shipping and sales tax. The complaint also alleges Ubiquiti caused its authorized distributors to collect the same surcharge, embedded in product prices, and remit it to Ubiquiti.At checkout, Ubiquiti told customers it had "elected to bear a portion of the increased cost to relieve the burden on our customers" and was passing only the "remainder" along. The lawsuit alleges this was misleading: because tariffs are calculated on the dutiable import value of goods — the importer's cost, which is far below the retail price — a 7.2% surcharge on the retail price could exceed the entire tariff owed on a product. The complaint offers an illustration: a product retailing for $100 with a $40 dutiable value would carry a $4 tariff under the current 10% rate, while Ubiquiti's surcharge on that product would be $7.20 — roughly 180% of the actual tariff. These figures are the plaintiff's allegations and estimates, not court findings.
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 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating those duties. U.S. Customs and Border Protection stopped collecting IEEPA duties on February 24, 2026, and the Court of International Trade later ordered CBP to process entries without those duties — effectively entitling importers of record to refunds. By early March 2026, CBP had collected roughly $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs, according to filings cited in the complaint.That refund process flows to importers — for example, through U.S. Customs and Border Protection's tariff-refund portal — not to the consumers who paid surcharges at checkout. The complaint alleges Ubiquiti, as the importer of record for its products, is entitled to recover the IEEPA duties it paid, yet has not refunded or committed to refund any portion of the tariff surcharges it collected from customers. On that theory, the suit says, Ubiquiti stands to recover the same tariff burden twice: once from customers and again from the government. The complaint contrasts this with other companies that announced tariff-refund or credit programs for customers after the ruling.
The Surcharge Allegedly Continued After the Tariffs Fell
The lawsuit also targets what happened after the IEEPA tariffs ended. On February 24, 2026 — the same day CBP stopped collecting IEEPA duties — a new 10% global import surcharge took effect under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. According to the complaint, Ubiquiti kept charging the same roughly 7.2% Tariff Surcharge Fee with the same checkout explanation, even though the new tariff is only 10% of the much lower dutiable value. For goods imported from Vietnam before February 24, 2026, the complaint alleges the surcharge had no lawful tariff behind it at all, since those duties are refundable. The plaintiff's own orders illustrate the claim: he alleges he was charged $54.58 in surcharges on two $379 access readers in March 2026 and another $27.29 on a third in April 2026, amounts he says exceeded any actual tariff on those products.The complaint frames the continued fee as "concealing a price increase behind the guise of a Tariff Surcharge" — an allegation Ubiquiti has not answered in court.
A Wave of Tariff-Refund Class Actions
The Ubiquiti case joins a growing wave of consumer lawsuits over who keeps the money when a tariff is struck down. Similar tariff-refund suits have been filed against Ralph Lauren, Columbia Sportswear, Puma, IKEA, Nike, Walmart, and Costco. Most of those cases involve tariff costs folded into higher prices; the Ubiquiti complaint stands out because the surcharge was an explicit, itemized fee that customers could see on every invoice — which the plaintiff argues makes the alleged overcharge unusually easy to trace.What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint asks the court to:• Certify a nationwide class of everyone in the U.S. who purchased Ubiquiti products and paid a Tariff Surcharge, with subclasses for purchases made between October 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026, and purchases made on or after February 24, 2026.
• Award damages and restitution, including the surcharge amounts paid during the IEEPA period and the portion of later surcharges that exceeded Ubiquiti's actual tariff costs, plus the sales tax assessed on those amounts.
• Declare that Ubiquiti may not keep both the customer surcharges and any government tariff refunds covering the same costs.
• Enjoin Ubiquiti from charging tariff surcharges that do not reasonably correspond to its actual tariff costs, and require an accounting of the surcharges collected, tariffs paid, and refunds received.
• Award pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs.
All of these are requests for relief tied to unproven allegations; Ubiquiti has not been found to have done anything unlawful, and no money has been awarded.
Is There a Ubiquiti Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Higgins v. Ubiquiti 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.
• Customers do not need to do anything at this stage.
The filing of a complaint is the very beginning of a case, not the end. Ubiquiti 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 proposed class covers everyone in the United States who purchased Ubiquiti products and paid a Tariff Surcharge — whether as a visible line item on a ui.com order or, the complaint alleges, embedded in prices charged by Ubiquiti's authorized distributors. That would reach home-network and smart-home users, IT professionals, and businesses that bought UniFi, AmpliFi, EdgeMax, airMAX, or other Ubiquiti gear since around October 2025. No class has been certified, and the final class definitions, if any, could change.If you paid the surcharge, it may be worth holding on to your ui.com order confirmations and invoices showing the "Tariff Surcharge Fee" line item in case a class is later certified and a claims process opens. There is nothing to file right now.
Beware of Ubiquiti Tariff Refund Scams
Important: whenever a class action is filed against a well-known brand, scammers send fake "refund" texts, emails, and calls asking customers to click a link, confirm bank details, or pay a small "processing fee." There is no Ubiquiti tariff surcharge refund claim form right now, and Ubiquiti has not announced any customer 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. Ubiquiti may answer the complaint or file 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 Ubiquiti lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, Ubiquiti's 7.2% Tariff Surcharge Fee exceeded the tariffs actually owed on its products, Ubiquiti kept collecting it after the IEEPA tariffs were struck down, and it has not refunded customers even though it is entitled to recover the invalidated duties from the government. 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 Ubiquiti tariff refund today is running a scam.Who could be covered?
Generally, anyone in the U.S. who paid a Tariff Surcharge on Ubiquiti products — directly on ui.com or through an authorized distributor — since around October 2025. The exact class definition is not final because no class has been certified.How do I know if I paid the surcharge?
On ui.com orders, the fee appeared as a separate "Tariff Surcharge Fee" line item at checkout and on the invoice, alongside shipping and sales tax. If you bought through a distributor, the complaint alleges the charge was embedded in the product price rather than itemized, so it may not be visible on your receipt.Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Higgins v. Ubiquiti Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00659 (D. Del., filed June 4, 2026).• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 146 S. Ct. 628 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026).
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection — IEEPA Duty Refunds.
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
Higgins v. Ubiquiti Inc.
Case Number
1:26-cv-00659
Court
U.S. District Court, District of Delaware
Date Filed
June 4, 2026
Claims
N.Y. GBL §§ 349–350; Michigan CPA (alternative); unjust enrichment; money had and received; declaratory relief
