Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP (“CPM”) filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, against GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro”), on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers who bought GoPro products at prices the company quietly raised to cover the costs of tariffs. The federal government is now refunding those tariffs with interest.
The complaint alleges that on February 3, 2025, one day before the first tariffs took effect, GoPro publicly assured consumers that it did not expect U.S. consumer pricing to be materially affected by the tariffs. About two months later, GoPro raised the U.S. prices of its flagship cameras and items. GoPro has not returned any of it, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that the underlying tariffs were unlawful.
Starting in early 2025, President Trump used emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) to place new tariffs on almost all U.S. imports. The IEEPA tariffs first targeted goods from Canada, Mexico, and China, and soon covered goods from nearly every country coming into the U.S.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the President did not have the legal authority to impose tariffs this way and ruled that these tariffs were illegal, holding that “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., writing for the majority, explained that the power to impose tariffs is “very clear[ly] . . . a branch of the taxing power” that the Framers gave to “Congress alone,” and that tariffs “operate directly on domestic importers to raise revenue for the Treasury.” Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 146 S. Ct. 628 (2026).
Because the tariffs were ruled unlawful, the government is now refunding the money, with interest, to the companies that paid them. The refunds go only to companies that paid the tariffs directly. Customers who actually covered tariff costs through higher prices at the store get nothing back from the government.
Joe Cotchett said, “GoPro told the public its prices wouldn’t go up because of tariffs. Then it raised them anyway, sold the refund to its lender the day before the Supreme Court ruled, and lined up a sale that pays off everyone except its customers. That’s not passing through costs. That’s pocketing them.”
Sarvenaz “Nazy” J. Fahimi said, “As alleged, GoPro assured consumers their prices would hold, then quietly charged them more and kept the refund for itself. Customers trusted the company’s word, and they deserve to be made whole.”
Pierce H. Stanley said, “Families bought cameras to record vacations, sports, and milestones, and they paid an invisible tax that the Supreme Court has now ruled should never have been collected. The refund money exists because those customers paid for it. It belongs to them.”
