GoPro tariff refund lawsuit over price increases kept after IEEPA ruling

A New Hampshire buyer of a GoPro HERO13 Black filed a proposed nationwide class action on October 9, 2026, alleging GoPro raised U.S. prices to cover tariffs and then kept the tariff refunds after the Supreme Court ruled those tariffs unlawful. The case is Hogrell v. GoPro, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-11719, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

The proposed class covers U.S. consumers who bought GoPro-branded products between February 4, 2025 and February 24, 2026 whose U.S. retail prices GoPro had raised. The complaint asks the court to order restitution and to place a constructive trust on the refund money before GoPro's pending merger closes. GoPro had not publicly responded when this article was checked. There is no settlement or claim form.

The plaintiff is John Hogrell of Derry, New Hampshire. The complaint says he bought a HERO13 Black around July 30, 2025 for about $418.99.

GoPro, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in San Mateo, California, that sells action cameras, including the HERO, MAX 360 and MISSION lines, plus mounts, accessories and subscriptions. The complaint says GoPro makes its products overseas, including in Thailand, China and Mexico, and acts as the importer of record, which means it paid the duties directly.

The plaintiff is represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, including Joe Cotchett, Nazy Fahimi and Pierce Stanley. CourtListener lists Judge Peter H. Kang as assigned.

The complaint lays out this chronology. On February 3, 2025, one day before the first tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) took effect, GoPro said it did not expect U.S. consumer pricing to be materially affected. Around April 2025, the complaint says, GoPro raised the HERO13 Black from about $399 to $429 and the HERO from about $199 to $219, while prices in the United Kingdom and Australia stayed the same. On a 2025 earnings call, the complaint says, GoPro's CFO estimated the tariff impact at about $18 million and said about half would be offset through pricing.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The complaint says GoPro had sold its roughly $19.4 million refund claim to its lender the day before. U.S. Customs and Border Protection's refund system began accepting refund declarations on April 20, 2026, and those refunds go only to importers of record.

The complaint alleges GoPro paid about $20.2 million in IEEPA duties and recovered about $10 million of that from consumers through higher prices. It cites GoPro's August 2026 quarterly report showing an $18.9 million reduction to cost of revenue and $17.9 million in refunds received after June 30, 2026.

On September 1, 2026, GoPro announced a merger agreement with Starman Optical, Inc., paying shareholders $285 million, or $1.14 per share, and repaying about $92 million in debt at closing. GoPro said it expects closing by year-end 2026.

The plaintiff says GoPro's price increases passed tariff costs to buyers, so the refunds belong in part to those buyers. "That's not passing through costs. That's pocketing them," Joe Cotchett said in the firm's Business Wire release.

GoPro had not issued a public statement about the lawsuit or filed a response when this article was checked on October 14, 2026. The complaint's account of GoPro's pricing decisions and motives is an allegation. GoPro has not admitted that any price increase was caused by tariffs or that consumers have a right to the refunds.

The court has not ruled on anything. It has not decided whether tariff-driven price increases give consumers a claim to refunds, has not certified a class and has not placed any hold on the refund money. The Supreme Court decision addressed whether the tariffs were lawful, not whether companies must share refunds with customers.

The complaint's proposed class is all persons in the United States who, from February 4, 2025 through February 24, 2026, bought for personal, family or household use a GoPro-branded product whose U.S. retail price GoPro had increased on or after February 4, 2025.

Two points matter. The product must be GoPro-branded and one whose U.S. price GoPro raised; the complaint names the HERO13 Black and HERO but does not list every model. The purchase must be for personal use, so resellers are excluded, along with GoPro, its affiliates and employees, and judicial officers. This definition is proposed only and may change.

There is nothing to file. Gather proof of any GoPro purchase in the period, such as an order confirmation, receipt or retailer account history, and note the model and price.

Buyers with questions can contact Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy at (650) 697-6000 through the firm's case page, or speak with their own lawyer. A Class Action Pulse inquiry is only an inquiry; it does not join the lawsuit or create representation.

No money is available. The complaint asks for restitution and disgorgement of the tariff-related amounts, a constructive trust or equitable lien on the refunds that would bind any merger successor, and a public injunction requiring GoPro to stop transferring the funds, create a way to return them and disclose any tariff component of its prices. It asks for a jury trial. These are requests, and no amount per buyer is proposed.

• February 4, 2025 to February 24, 2026: proposed class purchase period.
• February 20, 2026: Supreme Court ruling on IEEPA tariffs.
• September 1, 2026: GoPro announces merger with Starman Optical.
• October 9, 2026: complaint filed.

No claim, exclusion or objection deadline exists. Those rights arise only if a class is certified or a settlement is proposed.

IEEPA is a 1977 federal emergency-powers law the government used to impose the tariffs. An importer of record is the company legally responsible for paying import duties. Restitution is a court order returning money that one party unfairly kept. A constructive trust is a court order treating specific money as held for others. Unjust enrichment and money had and received are claims that a party kept money that in fairness belongs to someone else.

GoPro must respond to the complaint. The plaintiff's lawyers may ask the court for early relief tied to the merger timeline, since closing is expected by year-end 2026. Other companies face similar tariff-refund suits, and how courts treat this question is unsettled.

A practical note: retailer order histories can disappear when accounts close, so save a screenshot or PDF of any GoPro purchase from the class period now.

The complaint supports the parties, prices, chronology, financial figures, class definition, claims and relief. CourtListener supports the filing date and judge assignment. GoPro's investor release supports the merger terms. Business Wire supports counsel's statements. Price changes and the $10 million figure are the plaintiff's allegations based on public filings and have not been tested.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and does not guarantee eligibility or payment. This article is general information, not legal advice.