Savage X Fenty, the lingerie line founded by Rihanna, has been hit with a class‑action suit filed on May 22 in federal court. Plaintiffs claim the company charged customers a $44.04 “TARIFFS” fee on an April 2026 order and intends to keep the money even though the underlying tariffs have been ruled unlawful. The lawsuit seeks refunds for millions of shoppers who may have paid similar surcharges.

Ajani Hoffert’s $44.04 surcharge claim

Lead plaintiff Ajani Hoffert says she was billed a $44 .04 surcharge labeled “TARIFFS” on a single purchase. According to the filing, the charge was added after the Trump administration’s emergency‑powers tariffs were later declared void. Hoffert’s attorneys argue that Savage X Fenty will receive a government reimbursement for the same tariffs but has no plan to pass those funds back to consumers.

Government’s $160 billion tariff refund expectation

A recent court ruling found former President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when imposing sweeping tariffs, prompting the Treasury to prepare refunds exceeding $160 billion to affected companies. As the source notes, many firms—including Amazon, Nike and Costco—have already faced lawsuits accusing them of shifting these costs onto shoppers. The Savage X Fenty case adds another high‑profile retailer to that growing list.

Savage X Fenty joins Amazon and Nike in surcharge lawsuits

The complaint highlights that Savage X Fenty set its own surcharge amounts rather than merely passing through a fixed government rate. This discretion, the plaintiffs say, turns the fee into a pricing tool rather than a mandatory tax. Similar defendants, such as Costco,have argued that customers voluntarily accepted posted prices, a defense that courts have scrutinized in related cases.

How the lawsuit could reshape e‑commerce surcharge practices

If the court orders refunds, the decision could create a benchmark for how online retailers handle tariff‑related fees after policy reversals. consumer‑rights groups contend that allowing companies to retain such surcharges would set a dangerous precedent , effectively rewarding “double‑dipping.” Conversely, businesses maintain that they merely passed on a cost that was later nullified, and that refunding could jeopardize their financial planning.

Will Savage X Fenty actually refund the surcharges?

The complaint leaves open whether Savage X Fenty will contest the claim or settle. As of now, the brand has not responded in court, and no government refund amount specific to the company has been disclosed. The outcome will likely hinge on whether the surcharge is deemed a pass‑through cost or a discretionary markup.