A fresh wave of lawsuits is targeting the extra charges carriers added when they billed customers for recently overturned Trump-era tariffs. After the Supreme Court struck down those levies last month, consumers and businesses are now asking courts not only for tariff refunds but for reimbursement of the **brokerage** and handling fees charged by major shippers.
Litigation filed in several states argues that companies such as FedEx and UPS wrongly levied additional brokerage and duty-advancement fees on top of the now-void tariffs. Plaintiffs say the carriers had no legal right to collect those line items and seek to recover them directly from the shippers rather than wait for the federal government’s refund process to play out.
One recently filed complaint describes a buyer who imported a $140 pair of shoes and was assessed $36 by a carrier: roughly $21 in tariff duties and $15 billed as a brokerage or duty-advance charge. That kind of split — where ancillary fees approach the amount of the tariff itself — is a recurring detail across multiple suits.
Breeze Airways launches 5 new international routes in Caribbean
Roaring Kitty’s X account posts after 16 months, GameStop jumps 13%
- Who’s suing: At least five separate lawsuits, several pursuing class-action status, have been filed against FedEx or UPS since the court’s decision last month.
- What they claim: Plaintiffs contend brokerage and duty-advancement fees were unlawfully imposed and that carriers should return those amounts.
- Carrier stance: FedEx has said it will pass along any official tariff refunds to customers but has not explicitly committed to reimbursing related brokerage fees; UPS has not publicly addressed the question.
- Potential scale: While the government collected about $133 billion in the tariffs the court struck down, it’s unclear how much carriers generated in related brokerage revenue.
The dispute matters now because many consumers only noticed the charges after the administration removed the long-standing duty-free threshold for low-value imports — the less-than-$800 exemption that previously shielded small parcels from tariffs. Once that change took effect, household purchases ranging from foreign wine to camera gear began to generate tariff notices and processing invoices from carriers.
Legal and financial experts say the core courtroom question will be fact-intensive: judges may need to untangle how much of the fees reflected legitimate third-party expenses and how much were markup or profit. Carriers employ in-house customs brokers for many shipments, which complicates attempts to allocate costs strictly to external outlays.
“Courts will likely examine whether the fees represented actual pass-through costs or were an independent revenue source,” said a restructuring specialist who reviewed filings. That inquiry could require forensic accounting and granular transaction-level analysis if plaintiffs press for broad refunds.
Supply-chain academics note the practical side: a flat $15 charge on a low-value consumer import can appear disproportionate, especially when it equals or exceeds the tariff being contested. Carriers defend such charges as part of customs clearance and duty-advancement services, but judges will ultimately have to decide whether those fees had a lawful basis under the circumstances.
For shoppers and small businesses, the litigation could deliver concrete recoveries if courts find the fees unlawful, but outcomes may vary. Some cases may settle; others could produce narrower rulings focused on specific fee types or billing practices.
What to watch next:
- How courts characterize **brokerage** and duty-advancement charges — as bona fide costs or as merchant markup.
- Whether judges certify any class actions, which would multiply potential recovery for consumers and small importers.
- Carrier disclosures in filings and financial reports that reveal the revenue attributable to customs-related fees.
The emerging lawsuits mark a new front in the aftermath of the tariff ruling. Beyond the headline totals returned to importers, the decisions here could reshape how shipping companies itemize and justify processing charges on cross-border parcels.
