Fabletics Faces Class Action Over Alleged Illegal Tariff Surcharges Charged to Consumers

The U.S. Supreme Court held on February 20, 2026, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs — and now Los Angeles-based activewear brand Fabletics is facing the legal fallout directly from its own customers.

The Supreme Court's decision in *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* concerned tariffs President Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held that IEEPA does not give the President authority to impose tariffs. All IEEPA tariffs imposed by the Trump administration terminated at 12:00 a.m. eastern time on February 24, 2026. What followed was a swift wave of consumer litigation — and Fabletics became one of its targets.

Attorneys with the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, based in Skokie and Calabasas, California, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court on March 6 on behalf of named plaintiff Norah Flaherty, identified as a Chicago resident. The case, docketed as No. 26-CH-02139, alleges that Fabletics passed the cost of those now-unlawful IEEPA tariffs directly to shoppers, line-item by line-item, and kept the money even after the legal basis for those charges evaporated.

The numbers are modest but pointed: Flaherty alleges she "was charged $14.58 in 'unlawful IEEPA Tariffs across three transactions' when purchasing clothing on Fabletics' website." The complaint argues that an "IEEPA tariff windfall that could be kept by Fabletics 'offends public policy, is oppressive and causes substantial injury to consumers by depriving those consumers ... of the cost of the unlawful IEEPA Tariffs.'"

The legal theories stack on top of each other. Flaherty claims Fabletics violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, which declares "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices … in the conduct of any trade or commerce" unlawful "whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged." She also asserts unjust enrichment, arguing Fabletics enriched itself "at the plaintiff's expense" and without "the proper restitution required by law" by retaining funds collected in the name of tariffs that were never legally valid.

Flaherty is requesting a jury trial and a full refund of all IEEPA tariff costs paid by Fabletics customers. Her attorneys are also seeking to broaden the case into a class action covering likely "thousands" of consumers across Illinois and the U.S. who purchased through Fabletics in recent months and were charged the same fees.

The suit arrives as part of a growing legal pattern. More than 2,000 lawsuits seeking refunds have been filed in the New York-based Court of International Trade, including by major U.S. companies such as FedEx, Costco, L'Oreal, Dyson, and Nissan North America. Separate class action complaints targeting FedEx, UPS, and EssilorLuxottica have already been filed by consumers on similar unjust enrichment theories, and Flaherty v. Fabletics follows that same template.

The Fabletics litigation is not limited to the tariff question. A separate proposed class action, filed March 12 in a California court by former Fabletics members, alleges that the company's VIP Membership Program overstates its benefits, illegally allows member credits to expire after 12 months, and renews memberships without express consent. That suit argues the monthly credits function as "a gift certificate worth $100" and that their expiration window "forces consumers to redeem the gift certificates in an unreasonably short amount of time." The membership costs $59.95 per month, charged on the sixth of each month if a member has not skipped between the first and fifth.

For now, no hearing dates or responses from Fabletics have been entered in the Cook County docket. Some companies facing similar suits, such as FedEx, have indicated they will return any refunds to customers who paid the tariffs — a posture that could shape how courts and consumers view defendants who opt to fight rather than settle.