After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariff, global corporations that had been forced to pay hefty tariffs are rushing to file refund lawsuits.
Following U.S. big-box retailer Costco and tire maker Goodyear, on the 24th (local time) French cosmetics group L'Oréal, British home appliance maker Dyson, and global contact lens manufacturer Bausch + Lomb said they would join the legal fight. Since the ruling, the U.S. Court of International Trade has been flooded with complaints seeking tariff refunds, with more than 1,500 cases filed in short order. Major outlets said that as the sweeping tariff measures led by President Trump lost their legal basis, the counteroffensive by multinational corporations seeking to recover taxes previously collected is gathering steam.
Corporations are moving with striking speed to recover massive sums. L'Oréal, Dyson, and Bausch + Lomb filed refund complaints with the U.S. Court of International Trade over two days on the 23rd and 24th. They are expected to appear as official importers responsible for paying import tariffs in the U.S. market. Their aim is for the U.S. to fully compensate the financial damage they were unfairly forced to bear due to unilateral tariff administrative actions. Market experts said the trend of corporations with solid market share in major consumer markets, such as L'Oréal and Dyson, leading the suits is providing a strong incentive for other small and midsize importers to join.
FedEx, a giant in international shipping that took a direct hit from the global logistics turmoil, also filed suit against the U.S. government. In a statement, FedEx said, "Although specific refund administrative procedures have not yet been specified, we promptly took legal action to secure our rightful claims as an importer." Managing a global logistics network and fronting tariffs imposed on users' goods, FedEx is intent on setting a precedent that compels refund procedures through this case.
Experts said this reflects a strategic calculation to secure refunds preemptively and in the most certain way before the U.S. government formally establishes a lengthy and complex manual for tariff refunds. According to Reuters, these corporations are highly confident in their chances of actually winning refunds. That is the core reason they are unfazed by the high costs of large-scale litigation.
Legal and economic experts said that since the Supreme Court clearly ruled the president's abuse of power unconstitutional, it should not be difficult for individual corporations to get their money back if they present accurate customs records and proof of tariff payment. The legal community believes that if the first movers secure several clear precedents, other corporations will be in a very favorable position, to the point they may only need to present receipts without complex legal battles. Many major law firms assessed the win rate in individual refund suits as virtually 100%, noting that the government's defense had already been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Combining reports from Reuters and other foreign media, the total size of tariff refunds the U.S. federal government would have to pay back under the unconstitutional ruling is estimated at about $175 billion (about 233 trillion won). In particular, L'Oréal, Dyson, and FedEx, which filed suit this time, are massive multinationals that move enormous volumes through global supply chains. The market expects each corporation could collect tariff refunds ranging from hundreds of millions of dollars to several billions of dollars. With almost no risk of losing, it is a clear opportunity to secure cash in the multi-trillion-won range at once.
However, even if corporations win refunds for astronomical tariffs after fierce courtroom battles, the chances they will translate that into lower retail prices are slim. Ordinary citizens, who had to shoulder the tariff markups in the name of consumer prices, are poised to be shut out of any benefits such as price cuts from refunds. The industry expects most corporations to absorb the refunds to offset higher logistics costs from accumulated inflation or to fund new infrastructure. Few corporations are likely to voluntarily cut retail prices at the expense of profit simply because the justification for tariffs has disappeared. The fact it could take years for the government to deposit the refunds is also serving as a rationale for corporations to keep prices frozen.
Hinkley Allen, a major U.S. law firm, told Reuters, "Some are packaging this unconstitutional ruling as a huge win that lets consumers get their money back, but the general public cannot even imagine what lawful means would allow them to recover tariffs from the government or corporations." Among U.S. consumer groups, criticism is mounting that the judiciary merely polished the financial statements of conglomerate corporations without compensating consumers who shared the pain of rising prices. There is also deep concern that a huge hole in public finances could eventually come back to the public in the form of other taxes. Despite the import industry's declaration that it has "restored economic justice," the legal fight, which will temporarily boost only some corporate profits, is expected to remain a flash point rattling the U.S. economy for the time being.