A class action filed in federal court in San Jose accuses Logitech of pocketing price increases it blamed on tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February. It's the predictable next chapter of a refund fight — one where the law only clearly hands money back to importers, not shoppers.

Logitech is the latest company to get sued by its own customers over tariffs that no longer exist.

The Burlingame firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a proposed class action against the maker of mice, keyboards and webcams on Aug. 18 in federal court in San Jose. According to the complaint, Logitech spent much of 2025 and early 2026 marking up its catalog to cover import duties — the plaintiffs peg the typical increase near 14%, climbing to 25% on some devices, across roughly half the product line — and then held onto the added revenue after those duties were thrown out. The firm's founder, Joe Cotchett, framed it in a statement as pocketing money rather than passing through a cost.

The duties died on Feb. 20, when the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president no authority to impose tariffs — the decision, in a suit captioned Learning Resources v. Trump, that undid the administration's sweeping import taxes.

Here is the part the announcement skips. The Court ordered nothing of the kind for consumers. Any refund it contemplates flows to the importers who actually paid the duties — a claims process still being worked out inside the federal trade court and the customs bureaucracy — while the majority stayed silent on how, or whether, that money reaches the person who bought the mouse. Justice Kavanaugh flagged precisely that gap in dissent. A shopper's claim to a slice of it is a legal theory now being litigated, not a right the Court handed down.

That theory is being tested at scale. Within days of the February ruling, customers brought parallel class actions against FedEx and Ray-Ban maker EssilorLuxottica, the AP reported (external source, opens in a new tab). One international-law scholar told the wire the consumer cases were the logical sequel to the importers' refund fight — if the duties were unlawful, ordinary buyers would inevitably ask why they shouldn't be repaid too. Logitech makes a cleaner target than most: it told investors, plainly, that it was raising prices to offset the tariffs, and the suit leans on that record. (The complaint's claim that a Logitech executive later boasted of a net margin benefit from the pricing traces to the plaintiffs' filing, not a verified transcript.)

Two things to watch. Logitech — Swiss-listed, with U.S. operations run out of Newark and an office in San Jose — has not said anything publicly, and hadn't as of the filing. And even if the theory survives, sorting out which of millions of buyers paid what across a thicket of third-party resellers is the kind of class-action bookkeeping that reliably ends in fat legal fees and a thin check for the customer.