Complaint Filed by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants with Jury Demand. Plaintiff Requests Summons Issued. Receipt No: AMIEDC-10660817 - Fee: $ 405. County of 1st Plaintiff: Macomb - County Where Action Arose: Macomb - County of 1st Defendant: Carson City, Nevada. [Previously Dismissed Case: No] [Possible Companion Case (s): None] (Markham, Brian)
INTRODUCTION
1This class action arises from Lululemon USA Inc.'s retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA"), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. This windfall is a direct result of Lululemon systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers.
2This particular dispute stems from a structural inequity in the tariff refund process. While the importer of record is the only party that may recover a refund from the government for an improperly assessed tariff, the importer is often nothing more than a pass-through vehicle. Frequently, the importer simply fronts the cost of the tariff and is made whole by imposing higher prices on consumers. The consumer, for all intents and purposes, pays the tariff.
3And yet, those consumers—the truly injured parties—possess no direct avenue for redress, even when the Supreme Court strikes down the tariff as unlawful. The consumers who bore the economic burden of these tariffs possess no statutory cause of action in the Court of International Trade (“CIT”); only the importer of record has standing to seek a refund, regardless of who ultimately paid the tax. Large corporations, even those who passed 100% (or more) of the tariff burden onto customers, remain fully empowered to recover a complete refund for any unlawful tariffs they paid.
4This is not hypothetical. Thousands of companies—including Lululemon—have filed lawsuits in the CIT actively seeking refunds for every cent of the IEEPA tariffs they paid. If they succeed, they will have no obligation to return money to their customers under federal trade law, despite estimates that U.S. consumers shouldered two-thirds of the tariff burden.
5This lawsuit seeks to prevent Lululemon, one of the world’s largest yoga wear and sportswear companies, from double recovery. Lululemon has made no commitment to return any portion of its anticipated tariff refunds to the consumers who ultimately bore those costs. Lululemon’s simultaneous recoupment of tariff costs from consumers through elevated pricing and from the government through court-ordered tariff refunds constitutes unjust enrichment at the expense of Plaintiffs and a proposed class of similarly situated Lululemon customers.
6Therefore, Plaintiff seeks a judgment that Lululemon is obligated to return to Plaintiffs and the Class all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest.
7Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to restitution of the tariff overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Lululemon recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs.
PARTIES
8Plaintiff Joshua Neuman is a resident of this district and is a consumer of Lululemon products. Within the relevant period, Mr. Neuman purchased clothing from Lululemon subject to IEEPA tariffs, at prices inflated by Lululemon’s pass- through of IEEPA tariff costs.
9Plaintiff Jessica Kelley is a resident of this district and is a consumer of Lululemon products. Within the relevant period, Ms. Kelley purchased clothing from Lululemon subject to IEEPA tariffs, at prices inflated by Lululemon’s pass- through of IEEPA tariff costs.
10Plaintiff Bobby Kelley is a resident of this district and is a consumer of Lululemon products. Within the relevant period, Mr. Kelley purchased clothing from Lululemon subject to IEEPA tariffs, at prices inflated by Lululemon’s pass-through of IEEPA tariff costs.
11Plaintiff Ronald K. Buckman III is a resident of this district and is a consumer of Lululemon products. Within the relevant period, Mr. Buckman purchased clothing from Lululemon subject to IEEPA tariffs, at prices inflated by Lululemon’s pass-through of IEEPA tariff costs.
12Defendant Lululemon USA Inc. (“Lululemon”) is a Nevada corporation that conducts and is registered to do business in this district.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because the proposed Class contains more than 100 persons, the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and all named plaintiffs and at least one proposed Class Member are citizens of a state different from Defendant.
14This Court has personal jurisdiction over Lululemon because it conducts continuous business in the state of Missouri, including the operation of at least eight stores across the state.
15Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiffs reside in this District, and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District, including Plaintiffs’ purchases of tariffed goods at a Lululemon stores in Michigan or purchased online and shipped to Michigan.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
I.
Lululemon’s business.
16Lululemon was founded in 1998 in Vancouver, British Columbia, as a retailer of yoga pants and other yoga wear.
17Lululemon has since expanded its offerings from yoga wear to other products including shoes, lifestyle apparel, sportswear, personal care products, and accessories.
18Lululemon has been a massive success and is currently one of the largest yoga wear and sportswear brands in the world, with over 750 locations, tens of thousands of employees, and billions in annual revenues. II.
The IEEPA tariffs and Lululemon’s corresponding price hikes.
19Beginning in February 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders to impose tariffs on goods imported from most foreign countries, including Canada, Mexico, China, and other U.S. trading partners. Each executive order was premised on IEEPA authorization of the tariffs. President Trump claimed that these tariffs were justified under IEEPA because of a purported national emergency.
20Under the authority of IEEPA, President Trump imposed tariffs of 25% on most imports from Canada and Mexico, tariffs as high as 145% from China, and a baseline 10% tariff on nearly all imports to the United States.
Read the full filing
You’re reading pages 1–5 of 15. Register free to read the complete 15-page transcript on this page.
Register free to continue reading →
These are public U.S. federal court records, available free from PACER and the court. Registration unlocks our full on-page transcript — a convenience service.
advertisement
Public U.S. federal court record (district court docket 73106191, document 1). Source via the RECAP Archive (Free Law Project). The same record is available from PACER. Informational only — not legal advice.