Campbell's lawsuit: what it claims and who could get paid
The Campbell's lawsuit says tariff costs were passed on to shoppers. See the claims, proposed class, case status and why no money is available yet.

There is no Campbell's settlement, claim form or payout yet. The Campbell's lawsuit, McCormick v. The Campbell's Company, was filed on Aug 11, 2026 in federal court in Camden, New Jersey. It alleges Campbell's raised prices to cover tariffs that the Supreme Court later held the president had no power to impose under IEEPA, and that the company can now get those tariffs refunded without giving shoppers anything back. A nationwide class of buyers is proposed but not certified, and Campbell's has not been found liable.
What the Campbell's lawsuit claims
The suit, filed by Pennsylvania shopper Jacqueline McCormick, says Campbell's paid tariffs on goods and materials it imported and then built those costs into the prices shoppers paid. It points to Rao's pasta sauce made in Italy, and to the steel and aluminum used in soup cans and Goldfish packaging. After the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, the complaint says, Campbell's became entitled to refunds of those tariffs from the government but made no commitment to return anything to shoppers. It calls that a "double recovery."
The complaint also cites a Jun 8, 2026 earnings call in which, it says, Campbell's finance chief said the company expects a tariff refund benefit. It pleads four theories: Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and money had and received. McCormick asks for damages, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement, interest and attorneys' fees. Everything here is an allegation; follow it on Owed's Campbell's case page.
The tariff ruling behind the case
The case exists because of a Supreme Court decision. On Feb 20, 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA does not let the president impose tariffs. The opinion did not squarely decide how refunds of tariffs already paid should work, and importers have been looking at customs processes and court actions to get their money back, as King & Spalding's analysis explains.
The question this suit asks is different. If a company raised its prices to cover tariffs and then gets those tariffs refunded, does it owe some of that money to the shoppers who paid the higher prices? No court has answered that for Campbell's.
Who is in the proposed class
The complaint proposes a nationwide class: people in the United States who, during a "Class Period," bought products imported by or for Campbell's from countries subject to IEEPA duties, or made with imported components or materials, where Campbell's paid or accrued IEEPA duties. The complaint never spells out the dates of that Class Period, and no class has been certified, so nobody can say yet who is in or what they would have to show.
The allegations name Rao's sauces and Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, but the class is defined by tariffs paid, not by a product list. McCormick says she bought Rao's Marinara Sauce on Dec 13, 2025 and Goldfish Blasted Xtra Cheddar 27.3 oz on Jan 21, 2026 at an Acme store in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. For how a proposed class becomes a real one, see what happens after a class action is certified.
What the plaintiff would have to prove
The complaint lists questions it says every proposed class member shares. In plain English, a court would have to answer these:
- Did Campbell's pay IEEPA tariffs on products it sold to shoppers?
- Did it pass those costs on through higher prices?
- Is keeping money tied to those tariffs unfair or unjust?
- Did it mislead shoppers about pricing and tariff pass-through?
- Will it be unjustly enriched if it receives government refunds?
That is the plaintiff's framing, and Campbell's side of each question has not been tested in court. Showing how much of a shelf price was tariff cost, product by product, can be hard, which is one reason defendants often fight class certification.
Where the Campbell's lawsuit stands
The docket was last updated on Sep 28, 2026. It shows no answer from Campbell's, no motion to dismiss and no request to certify a class. Parties often use stipulated orders to set or extend deadlines, but the public docket does not say what the Sep 2 and Sep 28 filings cover.
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2026 | Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden (Case No. 1:26-cv-10134, Judge Karen M. Williams) |
| Aug 13, 2026 | Campbell's is served with the complaint |
| Sep 2, 2026 | Notices of appearance and a stipulated order are filed |
| Sep 28, 2026 | Another stipulation and order are filed |
| Next | Campbell's answer or motion to dismiss; none appears yet |
What could happen next
A defendant in a case like this usually starts with a motion to dismiss, challenging whether the complaint states a valid claim and whether a nationwide class can be built from state-law claims. If the case survives, it moves to evidence-gathering and a fight over class certification under Federal Rule 23. A settlement can come at any stage, and class cases commonly take one to three years.
Consumer payouts in everyday-product cases are usually small, and many such cases end without any payout. If this one ever settles, a court-approved notice would explain who can claim and what proof is needed; see how much no-proof settlements pay for typical amounts. For the full process, read how a class action lawsuit works.
What to do now
You don't need to do or file anything today, because no claim form exists. Be wary of any site offering a "Campbell's tariff refund" claim; our guide to spotting settlement scams explains the red flags. Our broader guide, a brand you bought got sued, covers what to save and which messages to ignore.
- Keep records: grocery receipts, loyalty-card histories or order emails for Campbell's brands, in case proof is ever requested.
- Watch the case: Owed's Campbell's page shows its status and gives you a way to be notified.
Owed finds the settlements you qualify for, explains them in plain English, opens the official claim form, reminds you before deadlines and tracks your claim to payout. You submit the claim yourself on the official form. Owed Pro is $2 for the first week, then $49 per year — one flat membership. Owed never takes a percentage of any payout. Browse open settlements that do have claim forms. This is general information, not legal advice; the court decides what happens in the case.
Glossary
- IEEPA
- The International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court held on Feb 20, 2026 that it does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
- Importer of record
- The company legally responsible for paying customs duties on imported goods, and the one entitled to ask for a refund of them.
- Pass-through
- Passing a business cost on to customers through higher prices.
- Unjust enrichment
- A legal claim that someone kept money it would be unfair for them to keep.
- Class certification
- A judge's ruling that a case can go forward for a whole group. Until then, a lawsuit is only a proposed class action.
FAQ
Yes. McCormick v. The Campbell's Company (Case No. 1:26-cv-10134) was filed Aug 11, 2026 in federal court in New Jersey as a proposed nationwide class action. No class has been certified.
It alleges Campbell's passed IEEPA tariff costs on to shoppers through higher prices and can now get the same tariffs refunded by the government without returning money to shoppers.
Not now. There is no settlement, no payout and no claim form. If the case ever settles or the plaintiff wins, a court-approved notice would explain who can claim.
The complaint names Rao's sauces and Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, but it defines the proposed class by tariffs paid, not by a product list. Which products would count, if any, would be decided later.
No. The Feb 20, 2026 decision was about whether the president had power to impose the tariffs under IEEPA, and the opinion did not squarely address refunds of tariffs already paid.
Campbell's has not been found liable, and no answer or motion to dismiss appears on the court docket yet. Owed did not find a company statement.
- CourtListener docket: McCormick v. The Campbell's Company (D.N.J.)
- Class action complaint, filed Aug 11, 2026 (PDF)
- King & Spalding: Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (class actions)
This article is based on public information as of Oct 21, 2026; features, prices and deadlines change. Owed is not a law firm and nothing here is legal, tax or financial advice. Corrections →


