eBay GSP Buyers Sue Pitney Bowes Over Tariff Refunds
Pitney Bowes is facing a proposed class action from eBay buyers who say the company collected tariffs through the marketplace’s Global Shipping Program, then failed to return that money after the tariffs were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jerome Luby, Christopher Vila and Nicholas Hughes filed the complaint August 14 in Connecticut federal court, seeking to represent U.S. buyers who purchased goods through eBay’s Global Shipping Program from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026 and paid prices that included tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
eBay is not named as a defendant. The lawsuit instead targets Pitney Bowes, which operated the UK version of GSP as an independent contractor and handled international shipping and customs clearance after sellers sent packages to the program’s UK shipping hub. eBay’s GSP buyer terms identify Pitney Bowes Global Ecommerce UK Limited as the provider of parcel processing, international shipping, tracking and customs clearance services for UK purchases, with buyers entering into a separate agreement for those services.
Under the GSP terms, buyers authorize Pitney Bowes to act as their agent in dealings with customs authorities, including “paying and accounting for duties and taxes on your behalf” and “managing any dispute” involving applicable duties or taxes. The terms also say the balance of a buyer’s GSP payment, after amounts going to the seller and eBay, is transmitted to Pitney Bowes.
Plaintiffs argue those provisions required Pitney Bowes to pursue refunds once the IEEPA tariffs were invalidated and return recovered funds to buyers. "Pitney Bowes therefore owes an affirmative fiduciary duty to seek available IEEPA tariff refunds for buyers’ benefit and to compensate buyers accordingly," the complaint says.
Luby, a Georgia resident, says he purchased a £99.18 record from a UK seller in September 2025. California resident Vila cites two UK Blu-Ray purchases priced at £77.64 and £102.31, while Washington resident Hughes says he purchased multiple UK items including figurines, paint and tool sets between February 2025 and January 2026. All three say tariff-related charges were included in the prices they paid through GSP and none have received refunds.
The proposed nationwide class could number in the thousands or hundreds of thousands of buyers, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs are asserting breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and a separate claim for declaratory relief.
The tariffs at issue were imposed beginning in February 2025, when President Donald Trump used IEEPA to impose duties on imports from China, Canada, Mexico and eventually a much broader range of trading partners.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Beginning February 24, the administration imposed a temporary 10% surcharge on most imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act.
CBP has since established a process allowing importers of record and authorized customs brokers to submit claims for refunds of the invalidated IEEPA duties. Refunds are generally issued to the importer of record or a designated notify party.
"On July 30, 2026, Pitney Bowes announced to its investors that it had applied for and received $5 million in IEEPA tariff refunds during the second quarter of 2026," the complaint says, alleging the company "had not refunded buyers for the IEEPA tariffs they paid."
Pitney Bowes did disclose a roughly $5 million tariff refund in its Q2 results, with the benefit recorded in its SendTech Solutions business. The company’s 10-Q says the refund helped increase SendTech gross margin, while CFO Paul Evans told analysts the segment had been a "taker of the tariff" in 2025 before receiving the refund this year.
But those disclosures do not identify the $5 million as refunds tied specifically to eBay GSP transactions or show that any portion came from tariffs paid by the named plaintiffs or other proposed class members.
It is also not clear from the disclosures which customs entries were included in the refund, who was listed as importer of record or how the original tariff costs were accounted for.
The GSP terms also disclaim responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of Program Fees and include a broad limitation of liability that generally caps liability at the greater of certain eBay Money Back Guarantee amounts or $100.
Plaintiffs argue Pitney Bowes should not be permitted to retain both the tariffs paid by buyers “and the same IEEPA tariff refunded by the government.”
The lawsuit comes after more than a year of tariff-related changes and disruptions to the UK Global Shipping Programme. Value Added Resource reported in February 2025 that UK sellers and U.S. buyers were seeing dramatic increases in GSP costs as eBay and Pitney Bowes adjusted to rapidly changing tariffs and de minimis rules.
Some of the largest initial increases were blamed on a technical problem, but eBay UK community staff later confirmed that the corrected rates were still higher due to tariffs. eBay temporarily paused UK-to-US GSP service in May 2025 while it adjusted the program to new import requirements.
eBay is also phasing out GSP in the UK, with eBay International Shipping beginning to roll out to UK sellers this month. Under the new program, eBay handles customs processing, international delivery and most post-sale issues. Orders already moving through GSP will continue under the old program as sellers are migrated.
Liz Morton
Plaintiffs are asking the court to certify the proposed class and award damages and restitution of money they say Pitney Bowes wrongfully retained, along with injunctive and declaratory relief. They are also seeking attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and punitive damages where permitted.
A summons was issued to Pitney Bowes on August 18. The company has not yet filed a response to the complaint.
The case is Luby et al. v. Pitney Bowes Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01311, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
