Which Shippers Have Filed Tariff Lawsuits?

Informational only — not legal advice.

At least one major carrier-side actor — FedEx / FedEx Logistics — has filed a public tariff-refund lawsuit at the Court of International Trade. Since then, FedEx and UPS have also been named as defendants in consumer class actions alleging illegal tariff collection. UPS has not filed its own suit against the government. DHL has not filed a complaint but has publicly stated it is protecting its rights as Importer of Record. For downstream customers, the practical question is not just whether a carrier filed something, but whether the entity in that lawsuit is the same entity that controlled your entry and whether that changes your next move.

What this page tracks

This page is intentionally narrow.

It tracks shipper-related tariff litigation and public carrier-side signals that matter to downstream customers, especially where:

• a carrier or carrier affiliate may have appeared as the Importer of Record
• the carrier advanced duties and billed them back to the customer
• the downstream buyer wants to know whether someone upstream has already preserved or advanced tariff claims publicly

This is not a master list of all tariff litigation. It is the shipper/carrier subset.

Why this matters

If your shipments were cleared by a carrier or shipper-side intermediary, a public lawsuit can matter for at least three reasons:

1. it may show that the upstream entity preserved rights publicly
2. it may show which legal entity is actually acting
3. it may affect whether you should wait, request records, press the carrier, or seek a separate recovery path

A public filing does not automatically prove your specific shipments are covered. But it can materially change your next move.

Current tracker

Verified entry: FedEx / FedEx Logistics

FedEx is the clearest public example in the current source set.

Public lawsuit (FedEx as plaintiff)

Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Logistics, Inc. filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade on February 23, 2026 seeking refunds of IEEPA duties they paid.

That matters because it shows a major carrier-side actor acting as a plaintiff, not just publishing customer notices.

Public statement

FedEx also publicly stated on February 24, 2026 that it was taking steps to protect refund rights after the Supreme Court decision.

Public pass-through signal

On February 26, 2026, the Associated Press reported FedEx said it would pass refunds through to the shippers/consumers who originally bore the charges if refunds were issued to FedEx.

Taken together, those three signals make FedEx different from a carrier that has only issued generic customer guidance.

Consumer class actions against FedEx

On February 27, 2026, a separate class action was filed against FedEx by consumers — Reiser v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Logistics, Inc., case no. 1:26-cv-21328, in the Southern District of Florida. The suit alleges FedEx charged customers illegal tariff fees and brokerage fees after the Supreme Court's ruling.

FedEx filed motions to transfer this and at least one other consumer class action to the Western District of Tennessee (FedEx's home district) on March 26, 2026 and April 2, 2026 respectively.

These suits are brought against FedEx by customers — they are the inverse of FedEx's CIT suit against the government. Both types of proceedings are now active.

UPS: public guidance, no government suit — and now a defendant

UPS has an official page discussing potential tariff refunds and states that government authorities had not yet provided official refund guidance, eligibility criteria, or filing procedures.

That is still a meaningful public signal. It tells customers UPS was publicly engaging with the refund issue.

But in the current public source set reviewed for this page, this page does not cite a public UPS complaint against the government.

That distinction matters:

• guidance page is not the same as public lawsuit
• public customer communication is not the same as verified preservation through a cited court filing

Consumer suits against UPS

UPS is now named as a defendant in at least one consumer class action. Anastopoulo v. United Parcel Service Inc., filed February 20, 2026 in U.S. District Court (case no. 1:26-cv-01005), alleges UPS collected and retained IEEPA tariffs from importers and consumers that were illegal under the Supreme Court's ruling. Additional suits focused on UPS brokerage fees have been reported as of late March 2026.

These suits are brought against UPS by customers — not by UPS against the government. They represent a different signal for downstream customers who paid tariff-related charges to UPS.

DHL: formal IOR protective posture, but no public lawsuit cited here

DHL publicly stated on February 20, 2026 that no formal refund procedure had yet been implemented and that DHL was prepared to assist customers with refunds if and when they became available.

That initial statement has since been clarified. DHL has publicly stated it is "proactively working to protect its rights as Importer of Record so that it can ultimately help customers exercise their rights and receive potential refunds, as applicable."

"Protecting its rights as Importer of Record" is more than a customer notice. It means DHL is taking formal steps — such as filing protective claims with CBP — to preserve its ability to recover duties. This is a stronger posture than the February 20 statement alone.

But in the current public source set reviewed for this page, this page does not cite a public DHL complaint filed in court.

What changed: CBP CAPE Phase 1 opened April 20, 2026

The Court of International Trade and CBP are establishing a structured refund pipeline for IEEPA tariffs. Key milestones:

• February 20, 2026 — Supreme Court rules IEEPA tariffs unlawful
• March 4, 2026 — CIT order in Atmus Filtration on liquidation/reliquidation mechanics for IEEPA tariff refunds
• March 5, 2026 — Multistate Section 122 complaint filed at CIT (Court No. 26-01472)
• April 1, 2026 — CIT Senior Judge Eaton endorses Phase 1 of the refund process
• April 10, 2026 — CBP publishes CSMS #68315804 confirming CAPE Phase 1 begins April 20, 2026
• May 7, 2026 — the CIT declares the separate Section 122 proclamation invalid and enjoins it for the importer plaintiffs in Oregon v. United States

What this means: CAPE is now the official Phase 1 administrative pipeline for eligible IEEPA refunds. Carriers like FedEx that filed CIT suits — or filed protective CBP claims like DHL — can move through that IEEPA-specific workflow. Section 122 is different: the May 7 ruling matters for entries with 9903.03.*, but it is not a CAPE Phase 1 claim.

Downstream customers should track whether the carrier that controlled their entries has formally claimed duties through CBP or filed in court. Guidance pages and statements do not substitute for a verified claim.

How to use this tracker correctly

This page is most useful when paired with your own shipment records.

Before assuming a lawsuit helps you, confirm:

1. the exact legal entity on your entry or invoice
2. whether that entity is the same entity in the public lawsuit or statement
3. whether the public signal is a lawsuit, a company statement, or only a general guidance page

Brand names are not enough. The entity match matters.

What to do if your shipper or carrier is on this list

If there is a public lawsuit

• get your entry records
• confirm who the IOR was on your entries
• compare the legal entity name on your documents to the plaintiff name in the case
• track any public statements about pass-through or refund handling

If there is only a public statement

• do not assume your specific shipments are covered
• keep a copy of the statement
• request your documents and confirm the entity relationship
• watch for later litigation or updated carrier guidance

If there is no public signal you can verify

That does not prove nothing is happening administratively. It only means you should not assume a public lawsuit or public pass-through plan exists unless you can verify it.

Why RefundArrow still matters

The product value here is not "we can magically see every filing." It is helping you connect incomplete public signals to your actual customs facts.

That means:

• identifying the real carrier / broker / IOR entity
• matching that entity to public lawsuits and public statements
• separating "same brand" from "same legal entity"
• deciding whether the right next move is to wait, request records, press the carrier, or escalate