Complaint Against the Gap Inc. by Kristin Debenedictis. (class Action) Certificate of Interested Parties Is Due by 5/22/2026. Proof of Service Is Due by 8/10/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons) (Sharp, Matthew) Notice of Certificate of Interested Parties Requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a Party Must Immediately File Its Disclosure Statement with Its First Appearance, Pleading, Petition, Motion, Response, or Other Request Addressed to the Court

1.

Plaintiff Kristin Debenedictis is a resident citizen of Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiff has

purchased goods from Defendant that were imported from countries subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). The purchase price for the goods that Plaintiff Debenedictis purchased from Defendant was increased to account for the tariffs imposed on

those products. Plaintiff Debenedictis would not have paid the increased price if Defendant had not passed the cost of the IEEPA tariffs on to consumers.

2.

Defendant, The Gap Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business

located at 2 Folsom Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Defendant may be served via its registered agent, C T Corporation System at 330 N. Brand Boulevard, Ste. 700, Glendale, California 91203.

3.

Defendant is an American multinational clothing and accessories retailer. A substantial

portion of Defendant’s products are imported goods subject to IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States government.

4.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. At least one class member and Defendant are citizens of different states. And there are over 100 putative Class Members.

5.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it maintains sufficient

minimum contacts with Nevada such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice; Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Nevada, maintains several retail stores in Nevada, and conducts substantial business with Nevada consumers; and Plaintiff’s cause of action arises out of or relates to Defendant’s contacts with Nevada.

6.

Venue is proper in this Court because a substantial part of the events, acts, and

omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.

7.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in

the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

8.

Defendant is an American multinational clothing and accessories retailer founded in

1969 by Donald Fisher and Doris F. Fisher. Defendant is a leading global specialty retailer offering clothing, accessories, and personal care products for men, women, children, and babies under the Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, and Athleta brand names.

9.

Defendant’s products sold in the United States are primarily manufactured in Asia, with

significant production occurring in China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Cambodia.1

10.

Most of Defendant’s products sold in the United States are imported. ,Due to its high

reliance on imports, Defendant is heavily affected by tariffs.

11.

In or around February 2025, President Donald Trump invoked the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico, primarily targeting drug trafficking and illegal immigration. He later expanded these IEEPA-based tariffs to many other nations to combat trade deficits. Based on this declaration, President Trump invoked IEEPA to announce tariffs of at least 10% on imports from almost all U.S. trading partners.2 Some reported rates reached 30% (20% IEEPA tariff and 10% country-specific tariff) on all Chinese goods.

12.

Under U.S. customs law, Importers of Record (IOR) are responsible for paying tariffs

when goods enter the United States. Accordingly, Defendant was required to pay the IEEPA tariffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon entry of covered merchandise into the United States.

13.

The IEEPA tariffs sharply increased the cost of importing consumer goods into the

United States, especially for retailers like Defendant that depend on global supply chains. For instance, in its Fiscal 2025 Outlook, Defendant stated the 30% tariffs on imports from China and 10% tariffs on imports from other countries could “result in a gross estimated incremental cost of approximately $250 million to $300 million.”3

14.

In response, Defendant took a hybrid approach to mitigating the costs associated with

the IEEPA tariffs: raising prices on select items and leveraging supply chain diversification.4

15.

Between February 1, 2025, and February 20, 2026, Plaintiff Debenedictis purchased

items from Defendant that were imported from countries subject to tariffs imposed under the IEEPA.

Gap

Inc.’s Evolving Apparel Sourcing Base: 2021-2024, available at:

https://shenglufashion.com/2025/03/06/gap-inc-s-evolving-apparel-sourcing-base-2021-2024/ 2 Supreme Court Rules Against Tariffs Imposed Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). (2026, April 29). Available at: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11398 3 Gap Inc. Reports First Quarter Fiscal 2025 Results, May 29, 2025, available at: https://www.gapinc.com/en-us/articles/2025/05/gap-inc-reports-first-quarter-fiscal-2025-results 4 Gap expects tariff mitigation to start paying off next year, DIVE Brief, available at: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/gap-tariff-mitigation-q3-earnings-results/807729/

The purchase price for the goods that Plaintiff Debenedictis purchased from Defendant was increased to account for the tariffs imposed on those products.

16.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that IEEPA does

not authorize the President to impose tariffs and that such tariffs were unlawful and imposed without statutory authority. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026). This ruling not only invalidated tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but it also prompted the U.S. Court of International Trade to recognize that importers of record are entitled to refunds of duties paid under the unlawful tariff regime.

17.

In or around April 2025, U.S. Customs and Border Protection debuted a tariff refund

claims portal where IORs can submit a declaration for the tariffs they paid under the IEEPA and receive a consolidated refund amount. Reports indicate that Defendant is due a $400 million refund.5

18.

Unfortunately, the cost of IEEPA tariffs was passed by Defendant onto Plaintiff and

Class members through higher prices paid for Defendant’s goods. Despite being eligible for a refund of the cost of the unlawful tariffs, Defendant has not indicated any plans to return tariff refunds to customers who paid higher prices.

19.

Plaintiff and Class members paid tariff-inflated prices to Defendant, but Defendant now

seeks to retain both the consumer pass-through and any government refund of the same unlawful tariff charges.

20.

Despite lacking lawful authority, Defendant charged, collected, and retained tariff-

related fees from Plaintiff and Class members via its increased prices.

21.

Defendant was not authorized by contract, statute, or law to charge or retain unlawful

tariff-related fees.

22.

Defendant’s conduct breached its contracts with Plaintiff and Class members and

violated the fundamental obligation of good faith and fair dealing inherent in those agreements.

23.

Defendant was unjustly enriched by collecting and retaining money to which it was not

legally entitled. 5 Tariff refunds begin on Monday. These retailers are due big paydays. CNBC, Economy (Apr. 20, 2026)

available

at: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/20/tariff-refunds-begin-on-monday-these-

retailers-are-due-big-paydays.html.

24.

Plaintiff and Class members suffered economic injury as a direct result of Defendant’s

conduct, including payment of unlawful tariff-related charges and associated fees via increased prices for Defendant’s goods.

25.

Defendant’s conduct was uniform and systematic, affecting thousands of customers

nationwide, and was carried out pursuant to standardized policies, practices, and contractual terms. Plaintiff and Class Members were deceived by Defendant’s conduct, which created a material mistake of fact and/or law and caused Plaintiff and Class Members to pay higher prices than they ordinarily would have paid or otherwise deprived them of a choice of whether to make the payment.

26.

As a direct and proximate result of paying the unlawful tariffs, Plaintiff and Class

members suffered financial injury.

27.

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons

to recover damages, restitution, disgorgement, and equitable relief arising from Defendant’s unlawful conduct.

28.

Absent relief from this Court, Defendant will continue to retain funds obtained through

unlawful pass-through charges.

29.

Defendant is among the largest importers of consumer goods and therefore stands to

recover roughly $400 million in tariff refunds. Those expected refunds are especially significant here because Defendant previously passed tariff-related cost increases through to consumers in the form of higher retail prices, meaning Defendant will recover duties whose economic burden was borne, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff and Class Members.

30.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in

the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

31.

Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). The class Plaintiff seeks to represent can be defined as:

Nationwide Class: All persons in the United States who, within the applicable period, purchased goods from Defendant and paid higher prices for those goods as a result of tariffs