Consumers are seeking compensation from a major shipping company after they say they were charged unlawful tariff-related fees on imported goods, even after the United States Supreme Court declared such tariffs illegal. The complaint was filed by Marc Weinberg on March 27, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against FedEx Corporation.
According to the filing, Weinberg brings this case as a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who paid additional charges to FedEx for orders mailed from outside the United States. The lawsuit centers on tariff-related fees imposed following executive orders issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) during 2025. These orders suspended duty-free treatment for low-value imports and resulted in American consumers paying increased costs for goods purchased from abroad.
The legal dispute gained new significance after a February 20, 2026 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. In that case, the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize presidential imposition of tariffs on imported goods. The majority opinion found that while IEEPA empowers “the President to regulate… importation,” it does not provide clear authorization to impose new taxes or tariffs.
Weinberg alleges that despite this ruling—which he says rendered such tariffs unconstitutional—FedEx has not refunded customers for previously collected charges and has continued to assess these fees even after the decision. “Defendant has done nothing to refund its customers for the tariff related charges they collected,” states the complaint. It further claims that “even after the SCOTUS declared President Trump’s tariffs as illegal, Defendant continued to charge its customers…fees on imported goods.”
The complaint outlines how FedEx operates as a common carrier and customs broker, providing shipping and import clearance services for goods entering the United States. In this role, FedEx allegedly charged its U.S.-based customers purported duties and surcharges based on now-invalidated tariffs under IEEPA authority.
Weinberg details his own experience as an example: he purchased an automatic watch from Japan in January 2026 and was assessed $421.20 in duties under IEEPA designation by FedEx weeks later—a payment he says he made under mistaken belief that it was lawfully required.
The suit argues that FedEx’s conduct breached its contracts with customers by collecting charges not authorized by contract or law and violated obligations of good faith inherent in those agreements. It also claims unjust enrichment, stating that “Defendant was unjustly enriched by collecting and retaining money to which it was not legally entitled.” According to Weinberg, thousands of consumers nationwide have been affected by these practices due to standardized policies implemented by FedEx.
The proposed class includes all persons in the United States who paid FedEx or its subsidiaries additional fees or surcharges purportedly imposed pursuant to IEEPA-based tariffs within the applicable statute of limitations period.
Plaintiffs seek certification of their class action claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, citing numerosity (thousands affected), typicality (similar harm across members), adequacy (representation by competent counsel), superiority (class action more efficient than individual suits), and predominance (common questions about legality of charges).
Three main causes of action are asserted: breach of contract; unjust enrichment; and requests for declaratory judgment declaring any arrangement permitting collection of IEEPA-related charges void ab initio. Plaintiffs ask for compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; pre-judgment interest; injunctive relief; attorneys’ fees; certification as a class action; reimbursement for sums paid under unlawful tariffs; rescission of any related contracts or agreements; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The complaint notes that while FedEx has itself sued the U.S. government seeking refunds for IEEPA duties it paid directly, it has not established a process to return similar funds collected from consumers.
Attorney Brett R. Cohen of Leeds Brown Law P.C., based in Carle Place, New York, represents Weinberg and other putative class members in this case (Case No. 2:26-cv-3296).
Source: 226cv03296_Weinberg_v_Fedex_Corporation_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
