The Fabletics lawsuit landscape has two active fronts. In 2026, customers filed class actions in Illinois and California accusing the activewear brand of keeping tariff surcharges it collected from shoppers after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the tariffs behind those fees. Separately, a 2025 class action challenged the company’s VIP membership program as deceptive; court records show a notice of settlement was filed in August 2025.
Tariff Surcharge Class Actions
On March 6, 2026, Chicago resident Norah Flaherty sued Fabletics in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaint alleges Fabletics charged customers line-item tariff fees to offset duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), then kept the money after the Supreme Court ruled those tariffs unconstitutional.1Top Class Actions. Fabletics Class Action Alleges Customers Charged Unlawful Tariffs Flaherty says she paid $14.58 in such surcharges across three transactions, with individual orders carrying fees as high as $6.2Legal Newsline. Fabletics Should Repay Illegal Tariff Surcharges, Class Action Says
The suit brings two claims: violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust enrichment. It calls Fabletics’ retention of the surcharges “oppressive” and a “windfall” that “offends public policy,” arguing that consumers had no ability to negotiate or refuse the fees.3ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Fabletics Charged Consumers Illegal Tariff Fees Flaherty asks to represent a nationwide class of customers charged IEEPA tariffs by Fabletics within three years before filing, along with an Illinois subclass. She seeks refunds, injunctive relief, damages, litigation costs, and attorney fees.1Top Class Actions. Fabletics Class Action Alleges Customers Charged Unlawful Tariffs
A key piece of the argument: on March 4, 2026, a U.S. Court of International Trade judge ordered the federal government to refund IEEPA tariff duties to importers with interest. The complaint contends that if Fabletics receives a government refund while also keeping the surcharges it collected from shoppers, it would be paid twice for the same duty.1Top Class Actions. Fabletics Class Action Alleges Customers Charged Unlawful Tariffs
On April 7, 2026, Fabletics removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where it is docketed as 1:26-cv-03859 before Judge Manish S. Shah.4PACER Monitor. Flaherty v Fabletics, LLC As of mid-2026, no substantive rulings had been issued and the company had not yet responded on the merits.
A second tariff class action followed on April 3, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Tanya Ashford et al. v. Fabletics, Inc. et al. (5:26-cv-01643) makes the same core allegation: that Fabletics is “improperly pocketing tariff surcharges from customers” and “refusing to commit to refunds.”5Law360. Activewear Co Fabletics Sued Again for Tariff Refunds The Illinois and California cases have not been reported as consolidated.6RetailWire. Consumers Deserve Refunds US Tariffs
Why the Tariffs Were Ruled Unlawful
Both tariff cases rest on the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. In a 6-3 ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that IEEPA does not give the President power to impose tariffs. The majority reasoned that under Article I, the authority to levy tariffs belongs to Congress, and that in IEEPA’s 50-year history no President had ever used the statute to impose import duties.7SCOTUSblog. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump The Court applied the major questions doctrine, finding IEEPA’s language did not amount to the “clear congressional authorization” needed for such a consequential exercise of power.8Supreme Court of the United States. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24-1287
Defense arguments emerging in the broader wave of tariff-refund litigation include challenges to standing and ripeness, mandatory arbitration clauses, and the voluntary payment doctrine, which holds that customers willingly paid prices when the tariffs were still legally in effect.9Covington & Burling LLP. Consumer Class Actions Arising From IEEPA Tariff Refund Efforts Whether any of these will apply to Fabletics has not yet been tested in the pending cases.
The VIP Membership Class Action
On March 12, 2025, eleven consumers sued Fabletics in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Bateman et al. v. Fabletics, Inc. (2:25-cv-02200) targets the company’s VIP Membership Program.10ClassAction.org. Fabletics Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Allegedly Deceptive VIP Membership Program
The plaintiffs allege Fabletics fails to clearly disclose that the VIP program automatically renews each month at $59.95, that the customer’s payment method will be charged without further authorization, and how to cancel. The complaint calls the enrollment process “intentionally inconspicuous.”10ClassAction.org. Fabletics Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Allegedly Deceptive VIP Membership Program
The suit also challenges the “Promotional Member Credit.” Fabletics advertises each $59.95 monthly credit as carrying $100 in purchasing value. The plaintiffs say that is misleading because “virtually no items” on the site are priced near $100, and most cost less than $59.95 even before the advertised 20–50% member discount. The complaint further alleges that unused credits expire after 12 months with no refund, which it argues violates California’s gift certificate statute because the credits function like gift cards illegally carrying an expiration date.11ClassAction.org. Bateman v. Fabletics, Inc. – Class Action Complaint
Legal claims include violations of California’s Automatic Renewal Law, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Gift Certificate Statute, along with Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for a Florida subclass. The plaintiffs sought damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for a nationwide class of VIP members.12Top Class Actions. Fabletics Class Action Filed Over Deceptive VIP Membership Program
Court records show a notice of settlement was filed in Bateman on August 7, 2025.13PACER Monitor. Dennis Bateman et al v. Fabletics Inc – Notice of Settlement The terms have not been made public.
How the VIP Program Works
The VIP membership costs $59.95 per month. Members get 20–50% off retail prices, early access to new products, and member-only events. Each month, members can apply their fee toward a “member credit” redeemable for items or bundles valued at up to $100. Anyone who doesn’t want to be charged in a given month can skip billing during the first five days of that month. Unused credits expire after 12 months. About 90% of company revenue comes from member purchases, and Fabletics has over two million VIP members.14Forbes. Fabletics Is More Than Just a Celebrity Athleisure Brand
That skip-or-be-charged structure sits at the heart of the Bateman complaint, which alleges the combination of buried disclosures, automatic monthly billing, and inflated credit values traps consumers into paying for a subscription they didn’t knowingly join.
The 2014 JustFab Settlement
The current suits follow an earlier action against Fabletics’ parent company. In 2014, prosecutors in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties in California sued JustFabulous Inc. over subscription practices on its family of websites, including Fabletics.com. The company was accused of failing to clearly disclose that buying discounted items enrolled customers in a $39.95-per-month automatically renewing subscription.15San Diego Union-Tribune. JustFab Settles Lawsuit for $1.8 Million
JustFab agreed to pay $1,875,000 in penalties and costs, split between the two district attorneys’ offices for future consumer protection investigations. The company also agreed to bring its websites into compliance by displaying subscription fee explanations “clearly and conspicuously” using bold and colorful font near discounted product offers.16ABC7 News. Online Retailer Fined $1.8M for Misleading Consumers Consumer complaints about unwanted subscriptions continued after the settlement, with hundreds of customers reporting they felt “sucked in by discounted prices then stuck with unwanted subscriptions.”17NBC Miami. Fabletics Draws Criticism Over Troubled History