The D&O Diary has been following the evolving litigation and management liability issues arising from the Trump Administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, the subsequent judicial decisions invalidating those tariffs, and the wave of refund litigation that has followed. As these developments have unfolded, tariff-related litigation has expanded beyond refund actions and shareholder claims to include consumer lawsuits alleging that companies improperly passed tariff costs on to customers.

One recent example is the litigation filed against Levi Strauss & Co. (Levi’s) in California and Louisiana. The allegations against Levi’s reflect the continued filing of tariff-related claims at a time when the scope and applicability of U.S. tariffs remain in flux. Although the tariffs imposed under IEEPA were invalidated by the Supreme Court, other tariffs and tariff-related trade measures remain in effect, including recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian imports and Canada’s corresponding countermeasures. These continuing trade actions demonstrate how rapidly changing tariff policies can create significant challenges for corporate governance, disclosure practices, and risk management.

Continue Reading Tariffs and the Continuing Wave of “Double Recovery” Consumer Class Actions

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), litigation risk has entered a new phase. As previously noted on The D&O Diary, early lawsuits seeking recovery focused on companies that passed tariff costs on to consumers. A newly filed class action against Sony Interactive Entertainment suggests a second wave may now be emerging; one targeting companies for allegedly pursuing a “double recovery” by retaining both higher consumer prices and government tariff refunds.

Continue Reading A Second Wave of Tariff Recovery Litigation and Expanding D&O Risk