Consumers allege that a major sportswear distributor raised retail prices to offset the cost of tariffs later ruled unlawful, and now seeks to retain both those increased revenues and government refunds. The complaint was filed by Miguel Hernandez and Jason Schoen in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 12, 2026, naming Adidas America Inc. as defendant.
According to the filing, plaintiffs Hernandez and Schoen claim they purchased Adidas goods whose prices were increased due to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). They argue that these price hikes were directly passed on to consumers when Adidas acted as importer of record for its products entering the United States from countries such as China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Cambodia. The complaint states: “The purchase price for the goods that Plaintiff Hernandez purchased from Adidas was increased to account for the tariffs imposed on those products.”
The background section details how President Donald Trump invoked IEEPA in February 2025 to impose broad tariffs targeting imports from China, Canada, Mexico, and other nations. Some rates reportedly reached up to 30% on Chinese goods. The document cites statements by Adidas’s chief executive acknowledging at least €200 million (approximately $233 million) paid in tariffs and an intention to "raise prices for American customers" as a result.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA did not authorize such tariffs and deemed them unlawful in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. This decision led U.S. Customs authorities to allow importers like Adidas America Inc. to claim refunds for duties paid under these now-invalidated tariffs.
Plaintiffs allege that despite eligibility for significant tariff refunds—estimated at roughly $233 million—Adidas has not indicated any plan to return these funds or pass savings back to consumers who paid higher prices during the period when unlawful tariffs were in effect. The complaint asserts: “Defendant has retained the increased amount paid by Plaintiffs and Class Members despite being eligible for a refund of the cost of the unlawful tariffs.”
Specific purchases are cited: Plaintiff Schoen allegedly paid $50 on June 23, 2025 and $26 on January 31, 2026 for shoes with inflated prices; Plaintiff Hernandez allegedly paid $74.99 on January 23, 2026 under similar circumstances.
The lawsuit claims this conduct was systematic nationwide through standardized policies affecting thousands of customers: “Defendant’s conduct was uniform and systematic... Plaintiffs and Class Members were deceived by Defendant’s conduct.” Plaintiffs argue they suffered economic injury as a direct result.
Four causes of action are outlined: unjust enrichment; declaratory judgment; violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act; and common count of general assumpsit (money had and received). Under unjust enrichment claims, plaintiffs state it would be inequitable for Adidas America Inc. to retain funds collected via unauthorized tariff-related charges.
The declaratory judgment count seeks court recognition that any arrangement allowing collection of IEEPA tariff-related charges is void ab initio (from inception), with all such funds returned either directly or via any government refund received by Adidas America Inc.
Under trade practices law allegations, plaintiffs contend that Adidas made misleading representations about pricing by failing to disclose its intent to seek refunds or establish consumer reimbursement processes after IEEPA tariffs were invalidated.
As relief, plaintiffs request class certification; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; injunctive relief; attorneys’ fees; pre-judgment interest; expenses; costs; and further remedies deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs include Michael A. Tompkins and Jeffrey K. Brown of Leeds Brown Law P.C., Carle Place NY; Paul J. Doolittle of Poulin Willey Anastopoulo LLC., Charleston SC (pro hac vice forthcoming). The case number is 1:26-cv-02848.
Source: 126cv02848_Hernandez_v_Adidas_America_Inc_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf