Nike is fighting several lawsuits in 2026, led by a wave of consumer class actions filed in May accusing the company of pocketing federal tariff refunds after already raising prices to cover those tariffs. The latest Nike lawsuit news also includes a federal enforcement action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the company’s diversity programs, a class action tied to the shutdown of its RTFKT NFT platform, and a long-running gender pay-equity case in Oregon. On the win side, Nike recently secured an $11 million trademark verdict, settled its dispute with sneaker customizer “The Shoe Surgeon,” and beat a greenwashing suit on appeal.
Consumer Class Actions Over Tariff Refunds
Three proposed class actions landed against Nike in under two weeks in May 2026. Two were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on May 8 and May 12, and a third was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 8.1Front Office Sports. Nike Tariff Refund Class Action Lawsuits One of the Oregon cases, Caldwell et al. v. Nike, Inc. (Case No. 3:26-cv-00923), names seven individual plaintiffs who bought Nike products during the tariff period.2Business Insider. Tariff Refunds Set to Land, Customers Sue for a Cut The second Oregon case, Dunn v. Nike, was filed May 12.3Sportico. Nike Trump Tariffs Lawsuit Refund
All three suits share the same theory. Nike publicly acknowledged raising footwear prices by $5 to $10 and apparel and equipment prices by $2 to $10 starting June 1, 2025, to offset tariff costs the company put at roughly $1 billion.4SGB Online. Nike Sued by Customers Seeking Refunds of Tariff Costs CFO Matthew Friend told investors in June 2025 that Nike intended to “fully mitigate” tariff costs through supply-chain shifts and consumer price increases.5CNN. Nike Earnings Tariffs Once the Supreme Court struck down those tariffs, Nike became eligible to reclaim the duties it paid. Plaintiffs say collecting both the price hikes from shoppers and the refunds from the government amounts to a “double recovery,” and they want Nike to pass the refunds back to consumers.6WWD. Nike Class Action IEEPA Tariff Refunds
The Supreme Court Ruling That Opened the Door
The tariff suits trace to the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, issued February 20, 2026. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” applying the major-questions doctrine to conclude that Congress would not have delegated its core taxing power through ambiguous statutory language.7Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito dissented.8SCOTUSblog. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump U.S. Customs and Border Protection then opened a refund portal on April 20, 2026, that reimburses importers of record. It does not reimburse the shoppers who absorbed the price increases, and that gap is what the class actions try to close.6WWD. Nike Class Action IEEPA Tariff Refunds
Where the Cases Stand
As of mid-2026, none of the three Nike tariff cases has reached a motion-to-dismiss ruling, and no settlement has been proposed or approved.9Fox Business. Nike Faces Class Action Lawsuit Accusing Pocketing Tariff Refunds Nike has declined to comment on the pending litigation. Its counsel is expected to move to dismiss and argue that the company has no legal obligation to share refunds with consumers.3Sportico. Nike Trump Tariffs Lawsuit Refund
Some legal observers are skeptical of the payoff for shoppers. Sara Albrecht of the Liberty Justice Center called the filings “premature,” said many companies have not yet received actual refund payments, and noted that consumer class actions like these historically take upward of five years to resolve. In such cases, she said, “the primary financial beneficiaries tend to be the attorneys rather than individual consumers.”1Front Office Sports. Nike Tariff Refund Class Action Lawsuits
Parallel Suits Against Other Companies
Nike is one target among several. Lululemon was sued March 27, 2026, in the Eastern District of Michigan in Neuman v. Lululemon USA Inc. (No. 2:26-cv-11029), with plaintiffs citing about $240 million in tariffs the company reportedly paid.10Bloomberg Law. Lululemon Sued by Customers Looking for Refunds of Tariff Costs Adidas was sued May 12, 2026, in New York federal court, with plaintiffs pointing to CEO Bjørn Gulden’s acknowledgment that Adidas paid at least €200 million in tariffs and raised sneaker prices by $10 or more per pair.1Front Office Sports. Nike Tariff Refund Class Action Lawsuits Costco, FedEx, and UPS have also been named in similar filings.
EEOC Subpoena Fight Over DEI Programs
On February 4, 2026, the EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action against Nike in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:26-mc-00128). The agency is investigating whether Nike’s diversity, equity, and inclusion programs amount to a “pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white employees, applicants, and training program participants” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.11EEOC. EEOC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Nike
The probe, opened on a commissioner charge by EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, focuses on Nike’s “2025 Targets,” which included 30% racial and ethnic minority representation at the director level and above and 35% across the U.S. corporate workforce.12ABC News. EEOC Alleges Anti-White Discrimination at Nike, Seeks Court Order The EEOC issued a subpoena in September 2025 seeking records back to 2018 on layoff criteria, racial and ethnic workforce data used in setting executive compensation, and details on 16 programs the agency alleges provided race-restricted mentoring or development.11EEOC. EEOC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Nike
Nike called the court filing a “surprising and unusual escalation,” said it has already turned over “thousands of pages of information,” and described itself as cooperating in “good faith.” The company has also argued the requests are “overly broad” and “too burdensome.”12ABC News. EEOC Alleges Anti-White Discrimination at Nike, Seeks Court Order Industry analysts describe the matter as a “test case” for the EEOC’s wider scrutiny of corporate DEI programs and expect the court to enforce at least part of the subpoena.13Bloomberg Law. Nike Probe to Serve as Test Case for EEOCs Efforts Against DEI
RTFKT NFT Class Action
Nike faces a class action tied to the shutdown of RTFKT, the virtual sneaker and NFT company it once owned. Filed April 25, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and led by plaintiff Jagdeep Cheema, the complaint alleges deceptive marketing and says the platform’s closure left NFT holders with “obsolete” digital assets.14Hypebeast. Nike Crypto RTFKT NFT Lawsuit Class Action Plaintiffs say they would not have bought the NFTs had they known the assets were “unregistered securities,” and they seek damages over $5 million.15SportsPro. Nike RTFKT NFT Web 3 Lawsuit RTFKT wound down its Web 3.0 operations by January 2025, and Nike reportedly sold the brand at the end of that year. Nike has not commented.
Gender Pay-Equity Case in Oregon
The gender discrimination case Cahill et al. v. Nike, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-01477-JR, D. Or.) is still active, though the district court denied class certification in November 2022.16Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Cahill v. Nike Filed in August 2018, the suit alleges that Nike systematically discriminated against women at its Oregon headquarters in pay, promotions, and initial job assignments, and that it fostered a hostile work environment, in violation of the Federal Equal Pay Act, Oregon Equal Pay Act, and Oregon Equality Act.17DHKL Law. Cahill et al. v. Nike, Inc.
In September 2022, the court refused to seal statistical evidence of gender pay and promotion shortfalls, the names of three former executives accused of condoning discrimination, and evidence that Nike started but then abandoned a 2018 internal pay-equity analysis on the advice of counsel.17DHKL Law. Cahill et al. v. Nike, Inc. As of March 2025, the Ninth Circuit upheld that unsealing order, though certain documents remain under a protective-order stay pending further appeal.16Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Cahill v. Nike
Recent Wins and Resolutions for Nike
Not every recent case has gone against Nike. On March 23, 2026, a federal jury in the Central District of California awarded Nike $11 million in Nike, Inc. v. Nicholas C. Tuinenburg (Case No. 2:23-cv-10495). The defendants, influencer Nicholas Tuinenburg and his brand Divide The Youth, had sold shoes called “Division Dunks” that replicated Nike’s Dunk silhouette while replacing the Swoosh with Tuinenburg’s own labels. The jury found them liable for counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and trade dress infringement, awarding $8 million in statutory damages under the Lanham Act and $3 million in punitive damages.18The Fashion Law. Nike Secures $11M Verdict in Divide the Youth Influencer-Driven Counterfeit Case
Nike also closed out its trademark suit against Dominic Ciambrone, the customizer known as “The Shoe Surgeon.” Under a consent judgment entered June 23, 2025, in Nike, Inc. v. S2, Inc. (Case No. 1:24-cv-05307, S.D.N.Y.), Ciambrone acknowledged that his customization work using unauthorized materials violated the Lanham Act. He is permanently barred from hosting deconstruction or reconstruction workshops using Nike trademarks and had to remove infringing products from his website within 30 days.19The Fashion Law. Nike Nabs Injunction in Shoe Surgeon Case He may still do limited one-of-one custom work, but each project must carry a written disclaimer that the shoes are not affiliated with Nike, that customizations may affect performance, and that the services are for personal, non-commercial purposes. Financial terms are confidential. Nike had originally sought $60 million in damages when it filed the suit in July 2024, accusing Ciambrone of building an “illicit ‘Nike’ empire” through unauthorized customization and classes teaching consumers to make counterfeit shoes.20WWD. Nike Shoe Surgeon Trademarks Sneaker Settlement
A greenwashing suit is also off the docket. In Ellis v. Nike USA, Inc. (No. 24-2420), consumers alleged Nike misrepresented products in its “Sustainability” Collection as environmentally friendly and made with recycled or organic materials. On November 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case with prejudice, finding no abuse of discretion below. The plaintiff had failed to properly seek leave to amend after being alerted to pleading deficiencies, and the appeals court did not reach the merits of the greenwashing claims.21Climate Case Chart. Ellis v. Nike USA, Inc.