A new lawsuit claims Fabletics charged shoppers a tariff surcharge it now stands to recover from the federal government

On April 27, 2026, Robert Brodbeck and Ajani Hoffert filed a class action lawsuit against Fabletics Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The lawsuit alleges the activewear company charged shoppers a separate tariff surcharge at checkout yet will keep federal refunds on those same tariffs now that the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down. The plaintiffs claim Fabletics will collect twice on the same tariffs: once from customers through the surcharge and again from the federal government through tariff refunds.

Why Fabletics added the tariff surcharge

In February 2025, President Trump issued executive orders invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 statute that lets the president regulate foreign commerce during a declared national emergency. The orders included roughly 25% duties on imports from Canada and Mexico and layered tariffs on imports from China that pushed effective rates higher. Fabletics reportedly manufactures most of its products overseas with significant production in China.

Following the tariff enactment, Fabletics added a clearly labeled tariff surcharge to customer orders, listed as a separate line item on receipts, the class action claims. In a public statement quoted in the complaint, the company said it added the surcharge to be transparent with consumers about pricing.

Brodbeck states he paid a $7 tariff surcharge on an April 25, 2025, order and an $11.85 surcharge on a Jan. 11, 2026, order. Hoffert claims hepaid an $11.85 surcharge on a Feb. 3, 2026, order.

What happens to the surcharges now

Less than two weeks after the Supreme Court's Feb. 20, 2026, ruling in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump struck down the IEEPA tariffs, the U.S. Court of International Trade ordered Customs and Border Protection to begin refunding the duties to importers.

Fabletics is eligible for those refunds. The company paid IEEPA duties at the border on every shipment of imported merchandise then collected matching surcharges from customers at checkout, the lawsuit claims. The Supreme Court's ruling unwound the legal basis for the duties but restricts refund eligibility to importers of record.

The complaint alleges Fabletics has made no legally binding commitment to return the surcharges to customers.

Five claims and a demand for repayment

The complaint brings five legal claims against Fabletics:

  • Unjust enrichment, a doctrine that applies when a company keeps a benefit at another's expense under unfair circumstances
  • Money had and received, a legal theory allowing a court to require return of money received under unjust circumstances
  • California Unfair Competition Law (Section 17200), a state law banning unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices
  • California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, a state law protecting consumers against deceptive and unfair conduct in commercial transactions
  • Declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, asking the court to declare Fabletics obligated to refund the surcharges

The lawsuit seeks restitution of all tariff overcharges, disgorgement of profits, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, interest and punitive damages.

What this means for Fabletics customers

The proposed national class covers everyone in the United States who bought goods from Fabletics between Feb. 1, 2025, and Feb. 24, 2026. A separate California subclass would cover California residents who shopped during the same window.

There is no settlement, no claims process and no money available at this time. The lawsuit remains pending in federal court in Los Angeles.