A shopper buys a pair of running shoes and notices they cost a few dollars more than last year. The sign by the register blames tariffs. She sighs, pays, and moves on. Now it’s fall 2026. The Supreme Court has thrown out those tariffs, and the government is sending money back. She isn’t getting any of it, and neither are most of the people who paid the higher prices. Here’s the part I think marketers are underweighting: she remembers.
The scale of the thing
More than 330,000 companies paid roughly $166 billion in tariffs that are now considered illegal. Under trade law, only importers of record get refunds, and companies have no legal obligation to pass any of that money on to the shoppers who paid higher prices. That may be technically correct, but it’s a terrible thing to explain to a customer.
The research suggests those customers did pay. One estimate found that consumers covered about a quarter of the tariff bill through higher prices. Another put the share between 20% and 60%. Nobody knows the exact figure, which leaves each company free to argue it absorbed everything. Shoppers tend to be skeptical of that argument.
What companies are actually doing
Most are keeping the money. A Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta survey found that 75.2% of companies plan to hold onto their refunds, and only 14.8% intend to lower prices. One auto parts CFO said prices tend to stick, and he wouldn’t expect them to roll back. That’s an honest answer, and it’s exactly the kind of thing that sounds awful when it gets repeated outside an earnings call.
There are exceptions. UPS and FedEx refunded customers, and Costco did so through lower prices. Walmart promised to use its refunds to lower prices. Those companies now have a story to tell, and their competitors don’t.
Where the anger shows up
It shows up in court first. Customers sued Nike, alleging it could recover the same tariff payments twice, once from consumers through higher prices and again from the government. Sony customers filed a similar suit over what they called a “double recovery windfall.” Amazon, Costco, IKEA, and others have faced similar claims. I’d expect some of these suits to be dismissed. That doesn’t matter much for brand perception, because the headline “customers sue brand over tariff refund” is bad on its own.
It also shows up in polling. In one survey by an advocacy group, 72% of voters said they don’t trust businesses to lower prices. That group has a point of view, so take the exact number with salt. The direction still fits everything else I’ve read.
Why I think marketers are underestimating it
The comforting view is that it’s complicated and nobody follows the details. I think that misreads how people judge brands. Shoppers don’t need to understand the Supreme Court ruling or the IEEPA statute. They need a simple story, and “you charged me extra for a reason that no longer exists, and now you’re keeping the money” is about as simple as stories get.
Prices also feel unfair in a way that sticks. Even the pro-business argument has a weakness. One retail analyst pointed out that refunds are one-time money, so cutting prices permanently would be hard to sustain. That’s fair. But it undercuts the idea that shoppers should simply stay quiet, because the refund was a one-time gain that came from a charge they carried for a year.
There’s a counterweight worth taking seriously. Some retailers did eat a large part of the tariff cost, and they have no reason to feel guilty. And the tariff story isn’t over: the administration has kept up an aggressive tariff agenda under other authorities, which muddies the picture. Brands can reasonably say prices are still under pressure.
What I’d do if I ran a brand
Say something before someone asks. Silence reads as hiding. If you absorbed the costs, show your work. If you didn’t, a targeted price cut, a rebate, or a clear explanation of where the money went costs far less than a lawsuit and a month of bad press. Value-focused retailers are already treating refunds as a messaging opportunity. That’s smart, because people forgive a lot when a company is plainly trying to be fair.
I could be wrong about how long this lasts. Outrage fades, and new bills replace old grievances. But shoppers have long memories for the specific moments they felt played, and this has all the ingredients of one. Brands that treat it as a legal footnote are betting that customers won’t connect the dots. I wouldn’t take that bet.
Sources: Groundwork Collaborative, Fortune, CBS News, Moneywise, Capital & Main, eMarketer, RetailWire, KSL, Rutgers/NorthJersey.com
Discover more from New Media and Marketing
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
