Levi's tariff refund lawsuit (Iglesias v. Levi Strauss & Co.)

At least three proposed class actions accuse Levi Strauss & Co. of keeping tariff refunds that its customers effectively paid for. The suits say Levi raised prices to cover import tariffs in 2025 and early 2026, then collected refunds of those same tariffs from the federal government after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the tariffs unlawful on February 20, 2026. Levi has reported $79 million in tariff refunds plus $5 million in interest and says it is putting most of that money back into the business.

The first case is Iglesias v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 3:26-cv-06100, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. There is no settlement, no claim form and no money available. No court has ruled on the claims or certified a class. This page explains what the lawsuits say, what Levi has said about the refunds and what shoppers can do now.

The defendant is Levi Strauss & Co., the San Francisco apparel company behind Levi's jeans, which it sells through its own stores, its website and other retailers. It is a Delaware corporation with headquarters at Levi's Plaza, 1155 Battery Street, San Francisco.

The plaintiffs in the three suits identified so far:

• Robert Iglesias of Santa Ana, California, filed the first case on June 18, 2026. His complaint says he bought Levi's 514 and 505 jeans at tariff-inflated prices. His lawyers are at Emery Reddy, PC and Milberg, PLLC.
• Trinese Raquel Scott Wilson of Gretna, Louisiana, filed Wilson v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 2:26-cv-01904, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on August 28, 2026. Her complaint describes a February 22, 2026 order of three pairs of shorts on levi.com.
• Deborah Brucker filed Brucker v. Levi Strauss & Co., No. 3:26-cv-12214, in the Northern District of California on October 20, 2026, according to the court docket. Her lawyers are at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP.

• February 2025: the federal government began imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, according to the complaints.
• 2025: Levi executives told investors the company was using "targeted pricing action" and other steps to offset tariff costs, the complaints say.
• February 20, 2026: the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the IEEPA tariffs were unlawful, which made importers eligible for refunds.
• April 2026: Levi's chief financial officer told CNBC the company expected about $80 million in refunds, the Iglesias complaint says.
• June 18, 2026: Iglesias filed the first suit.
• July 8, 2026: asked on an earnings call what Levi would do with the money, management said, "We haven't figured out what to do with it," according to the Brucker lawyers' announcement.
• August 28, 2026: Wilson filed in Louisiana.
• October 7, 2026: Levi reported its third-quarter results, including $79 million of tariff refunds and $5 million of interest.
• October 20, 2026: Brucker filed in San Francisco.

The plaintiffs say Levi passed tariff costs on to shoppers through higher prices and now stands to recover the same money twice, once from customers and again from the government with interest. The Iglesias complaint says Levi "has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff-related overcharges to the consumers who actually paid them." The Brucker lawyers say Levi raised prices across its catalog without telling shoppers, giving as examples Ribcage Straight Ankle women's jeans, up $10 to $108, and original fit men's jeans, up $5 to $84.50.

Iglesias brings claims for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The suits ask for restitution, damages and court orders, and the Brucker case asks that the refunds be placed in a fund customers can draw on, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Levi has not publicly responded to the lawsuits in any statement Class Action Pulse found. In its October 7, 2026 results, chief financial officer Harmit Singh said the company "made the decision to redeploy a majority of our tariff refund benefit back into the business." Levi said that includes about $60 million for the full year, spent on items including promotions and marketing. On the earnings call, management listed "sharper value for consumers during key holiday promotional moments" among the uses. Levi has not conceded that it owes customers any refund.

No court has ruled on whether Levi must share its refunds with customers. In Iglesias, Levi was served on June 30, 2026, and the court granted a stipulated extension of Levi's time to respond on July 17, 2026. The public docket summary we reviewed ends on July 20, 2026, so this page cannot confirm whether Levi has since moved to dismiss or whether the cases have been combined. No class has been certified in any of the three cases.

Nobody can qualify for payment yet because there is no settlement or judgment. The proposed classes, which a court could change, describe who the plaintiffs want to represent:

• Iglesias: all persons in the United States who bought goods from Levi from February 1, 2025, through February 24, 2026, on which Levi raised prices.
• Wilson: a nationwide class of people who paid higher prices for Levi goods because of IEEPA tariffs and have not been refunded the price premium, plus a Louisiana subclass.
• Brucker: a proposed nationwide class of consumers who bought Levi products at prices raised to cover tariffs, according to her lawyers.

The Iglesias class excludes Levi and entities it controls, the assigned judge and judicial officers and their immediate families, people who opt out and the lawyers in the case.

• Keep receipts, levi.com order confirmations and card statements for Levi's purchases from February 2025 through February 2026.
• Note where you bought the items. The Iglesias class covers goods bought from Levi, so whether you bought at levi.com, a Levi's store or another retailer may matter.
• You do not need to join a lawsuit now to be part of a class later. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, notice would explain how to take part.
• If you want to talk with a lawyer, you can submit a Class Action Pulse inquiry. A Class Action Pulse inquiry is only an inquiry. It does not join the lawsuit or create a lawyer relationship.
• Be wary of anyone who asks for payment to sign you up for a refund.

Nothing is available now. The complaints ask for restitution of tariff-related price increases, damages and orders requiring Levi to return the refunds, but they do not state an amount per customer. Whether shoppers get anything depends on how the court rules, whether a class is certified and whether the parties settle. The $79 million refund figure is Levi's total and does not represent a sum set aside for customers.

There is no claim deadline or opt-out deadline because there is no settlement or certified class. Statutes of limitations still apply to individual claims, and the time limits vary by state and by legal theory. A lawyer can explain how they apply to you.

• IEEPA: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law the government relied on for these tariffs.
• Tariff refund: money the government returns to an importer that paid duties later found unlawful.
• Unjust enrichment: a claim that someone should not keep a benefit that fairness says belongs to another person.
• Money had and received: an older legal claim to recover money a defendant holds that belongs to the plaintiff.
• Proposed class: the group a plaintiff asks to represent. It is not final until a court certifies it.

Levi is expected to respond to each complaint, either by answering or by asking the court to dismiss it. The two San Francisco cases could also be related or combined before one judge. Similar suits have been filed against other companies over tariff refunds, including Amazon and GoPro, and rulings in those cases may shape this one. Class Action Pulse will update this page if a court rules or a settlement is announced.

Iglesias and Wilson details come from the complaints themselves. The Brucker complaint was not available to review, so its details come from the court docket, the plaintiff's lawyers' announcement and San Francisco Chronicle reporting. Levi's refund figures and quotes come from its October 7, 2026 earnings release and call. Allegations in the complaints have not been proven. Docket status is current only through the July 20, 2026 entries we reviewed.

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.