Ford Motor Company faces a proposed consumer class action alleging that vehicle buyers are entitled to part of a $1.3 billion tariff benefit recognised after the US Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorise the challenged duties.
Jason J. Bullock filed Bullock v Ford Motor Company on 9 July 2026 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Bullock, a San Diego resident, says he bought a new 2025 Ford Mustang Mach-E on 21 February 2026. The complaint alleges that Ford incorporated tariff costs into pricing for vehicles assembled in Mexico, including manufacturer’s suggested retail prices and destination charges.
Ford reported on 29 April that its first-quarter results included a one-off $1.3 billion IEEPA tariff benefit reflecting amounts paid between March 2025 and February 2026, principally affecting the Ford Blue and Ford Pro divisions.
The accounting treatment followed the Supreme Court’s 20 February judgment in the consolidated proceedings Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump and Trump v V.O.S. Selections, Inc. The court held that IEEPA did not authorise the president to impose tariffs, but it did not decide whether consumers who may have borne higher prices were entitled to repayment.
Bullock seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California subclass. The complaint requests a declaration under the Declaratory Judgment Act and pleads unjust enrichment and restitution, money had and received, and conversion. It alleges that Ford would obtain a double recovery if it retained tariff-related price increases paid by buyers alongside refunds or credits arising from the invalidated duties.
The action seeks restitution, damages, declaratory and equitable relief, interest and legal costs. No class has been certified, Ford has not been found liable and the allegations have not been determined by the court. Bullock is represented by Hassan A. Zavareei of Tycko & Zavareei LLP.
The case is likely to turn on whether buyers can identify a tariff-related amount in the price they paid and connect it to Ford Motor Company’s later $1.3bn benefit. Dealer discretion, incentives, destination charges and negotiated prices may make that difficult. Ford may also dispute standing, causation and the use of a nationwide class where state restitution laws differ.
Importers, manufacturers and retailers receiving tariff refunds or credits should retain pricing records, dealer communications, customer notices and accounts showing how the duties were treated. Their legal advisers will need to consider possible consumer claims alongside customs recovery, financial reporting and the risk of further class actions before deciding whether any repayment or public response is necessary.