Edelson Lechtzin LLP is investigating whether Richemont raised retail prices on its luxury brands to pass along tariff costs and then failed to refund customers after the US Supreme Court invalidated those tariffs on Feb. 20, 2026 — a potential double recovery at consumer expense.
A US class action law firm is investigating Compagnie Financière Richemont SA over allegations the luxury goods conglomerate raised prices on its Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels and two dozen other brands to cover tariffs that the Supreme Court later struck down, then kept the money.
"The investigation examines whether Richemont raised prices to cover the tariffs, has not refunded or credited the tariff-related overcharges to its customers, and now stands to recover the same tariff payments from the government," Eric Lechtzin, partner at Edelson Lechtzin LLP, said in a statement Thursday.
The Supreme Court on Feb. 20 ruled that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful, invalidating the tariff orders that had sharply increased import costs since early 2025. Importers that paid IEEPA duties became eligible to seek refunds from the federal government, while many companies — including Richemont — had already passed those costs through to consumers via higher retail prices.
The investigation covers all 26 Richemont brands, including Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, IWC Schaffhausen, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Montblanc, Piaget, Vacheron Constantin, Chloé, Dunhill, Net-a-Porter and Yoox. The potential double recovery — collecting the tariff cost once from consumers and again from the government — could expose Richemont to significant financial penalties and mandatory consumer refunds if a class action is filed and succeeds.
Richemont did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company reported revenue of 19.2 billion euros in its most recent fiscal year, with the Americas accounting for about 22 percent of sales, according to its annual report.
The investigation comes as other companies that raised prices in response to the now-invalidated tariffs face similar scrutiny. The Supreme Court's Feb. 20 ruling eliminated the legal basis for the IEEPA tariffs, which had applied to imports from multiple countries and ranged as high as 25 percent on certain goods. The average US tariff rate had climbed to levels not seen since the 1930s before the court intervened.
For Richemont, the financial stakes depend on how much of its price increases during the tariff period were directly attributable to the duties. The company's gross margin in its most recent fiscal year stood at 74.5 percent, according to its annual report, suggesting significant pricing power that may have allowed it to pass tariff costs through to consumers without absorbing them.
Consumers who purchased Richemont-brand products at inflated prices during the tariff period may be eligible to participate in any future class action, the law firm said. Edelson Lechtzin has not yet filed a lawsuit; the investigation is ongoing.
The case could set a precedent for similar claims against other luxury and consumer goods companies that raised prices in response to tariffs later deemed unlawful. If successful, it would require Richemont to disgorge profits earned from tariff-related price increases and refund affected customers — a potential multi-million-dollar liability that investors will need to weigh against the company's strong balance sheet and brand portfolio.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
