Companies Take Three Approaches to Tariff-Refund Disclosures

The Supreme Court decision nixing tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) created an immediate question: who gets the money back?

The Court stayed away from that thorny issue, and later rulings from the Court of International Trade have not entirely cleared things up. Consumers, however, have an answer in mind, and you can probably guess what it is…an expectation that refunds should ultimately be returned to them.

With the specter of class actions looming, retailers and other public companies must be aware that public statements about refunds could become Exhibit A in those suits. Comments about refund plans can later be characterized as admissions, and companies that speak explicitly about returning refunds to customers are exposing themselves to litigation risk.

We looked to the Intelligize platform to see what companies are actually saying about tariff refunds in their filings. The disclosures fall into three broad categories.

Companies Suing for Refunds

These companies took the most aggressive route: filing lawsuits to recover tariff payments.

Costco moved early, filing suit against the Trump administration before the Supreme Court had even ruled on the legality of the tariffs. Other companies have taken the same route and even gotten explicit about the financial stakes. In the MD&A of its latest 10-K, Weyco Group noted that it paid approximately $16 million in incremental tariffs in 2025. Like Costco, it filed a refund lawsuit in December.

Culp, a mattress fabric maker that filed suit at the Court of International Trade, has taken a similar approach. The company disclosed in an earnings call that it paid roughly $6 million to $7 million in IEEPA tariffs over the past 14 months.

Companies Evaluating Their Eligibility

A second group is taking a wait-and-see approach. Rather than announcing litigation or making concrete claims about refunds, these companies are following in the tradition of taking a cautious approach by acknowledging the issue without making firm commitments.

Keysight Technologies, for example, discussed the issue in the Notes to Financial Statements in a recent 10-Q. The company acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling and ongoing litigation but said it is still assessing the potential implications, “including the possible eligibility for refunds of previously paid tariffs.” For now, it has concluded that it can’t estimate the financial impact of the ruling.

Companies Emphasizing Uncertainty

A third group is doing the shruggie emoji: disclosing the ruling but emphasizing that everything about refunds remains uncertain.

Rocky Brands, for example, stated in its 10-K that while the Supreme Court ruled certain tariffs unlawful, “the ultimate availability, timing, and amount of any potential refunds . . . remain highly uncertain and are subject to further legal, regulatory, and administrative developments.”

Hewlett Packard used nearly identical language in a recent 10-Q, and Ciena adopted a similar disclosure approach. All these companies are acknowledging the development without making any commitments.

All these companies, however, may ultimately have to face the question of what they will do with any refunds they obtain. Some companies have already weighed in—despite the fact, noted earlier, that plaintiff’s attorneys are closely monitoring public statements. FedEx, which collected tariffs on behalf of many customers, has pledged to refund any recovered amounts to the businesses and individuals that paid them.

Others have been more cautious. Costco, which is already facing a consumer class action, said on a recent earnings call that it would look to return the “value” of any refunds to members through lower prices or other benefits—but stopped short of promising direct repayments. Of course, Costco and others won’t have to live up to these statements until they actually get a refund. And at that point, it will be a good problem to have.

—

Ultimately, companies may still have to decide how to handle refunds if their legal challenges succeed. In the meantime, the language they use in public disclosures could shape future litigation risk and investor expectations. They key takeaway for issuers is that tariff-refund disclosures require careful framing: companies should balance transparency with flexibility while avoiding commitments that could later be cited in lawsuits or shareholder disputes.

***

Don’t just read about the trends — leverage them. Explore Intelligize with a free trial and unlock the tools professionals rely on every day.