Nike has been hit with three proposed class-action lawsuits in less than two weeks from consumers seeking a share of tariff refunds the sneaker giant is expected to receive from the federal government.

Adidas and Lululemon have also been sued in recent weeks as consumers argue retailers passed tariff costs onto shoppers through higher prices and now stand to recover those same costs from the government. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs in February, with a 6–3 ruling in the case brought by a company called Learning Resources Inc.

Of the three suits against Nike, two were filed in Oregon federal court—where the company is headquartered—one on May 8 and another on May 12. The third suit against Nike was filed in Illinois federal court on May 8. The Adidas suit was filed May 12 in New York federal court, while the case against Lululemon was lodged March 27 in Michigan federal court.

“Nike was always going to be an early target in this kind of litigation because it is the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” says Sara Albrecht, chairman of the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian nonprofit litigation firm that represented six small businesses suing the U.S. government over tariffs. That case was consolidated with the case that the Supreme Court ultimately ruled on.

Albrecht says Nike is “one of the largest and most recognizable consumer brands in the world, has enormous import volume, and publicly discussed tariff-related pricing pressure. From a plaintiffs’ lawyer perspective, that makes Nike the obvious test case.”

Since the Supreme Court decision, many companies seeking refunds have filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), which resolves trade disputes. Nike and Adidas are not among them, while Lululemon is (others include Reebok, On Holdings, and Skechers). In March, Albrecht told Front Office Sports more than 1,000 cases had been filed in the CIT.

The proposed class actions against Nike, Adidas, and Lululemon all follow similar frameworks. They say the companies passed increased costs due to tariffs along to customers, but they have not promised a piece of any eventual refund. Adidas is accused of raising the price of an individual pair of sneakers by $10 or more. That suit points to public statements from CEO Bjørn Gulden, who said the company had paid at least $233 million (€200 million) in tariffs and would be forced to “raise prices for American customers.” 

Two of the Nike suits note that the company has said it anticipated total cost increases of up to $1.5 billion, money it now stands to potentially get back from the government despite passing those costs onto consumers by increasing prices of apparel, sneakers, and equipment between $2 and $10.

The suit against Lululemon estimates that the company paid about $240 million in tariffs, costs which were passed down to consumers—the company announced in June 2025 it would raise prices in response to the tariffs, according to the suit.

The lawsuits claim thousands, if not millions, of consumers would be part of the proposed classes, and include claims like unjust enrichment and violation of the Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

A representative for Nike said the company “can’t comment on pending litigation.” Representatives for Adidas, Lululemon, and the plaintiffs in all the lawsuits did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

According to Albrecht, “these lawsuits are premature.”

“Refunds have only just started flowing, and many companies have not even received money from the government yet,” she tells FOS. “It is difficult to accuse companies of improperly retaining refunds before they have actually received them.”

She’s skeptical that consumers will meaningfully recover from the lawsuits.

“Historically, class actions like these are not surprising anytime there is the prospect of large-scale refunds,” Albrecht tells FOS. “But in many consumer class actions, the primary financial beneficiaries tend to be the attorneys rather than individual consumers, especially where the underlying economic harm is difficult to quantify purchase-by-purchase. And typically, they take upwards of 5 years to resolve.”