> While they have no legal obligation to refund those surcharges they imposed, it would be straightforward to do so and it would be the right thing to do.

I'm actually interested to see how this goes legally. I haven't seen an actual attorney who understands the subject chime in on it yet. But I could see a case being made that a line item like that could have a basis of being refunded if the company charging them itself received a refund. Certainly a long shot, but I'm guessing someone will bring a case at some point to see what happens.

Ironically companies that broke out tariffs charges as line items were lauded for "doing the right thing" and are the only companies who could possibly be remotely on the hook here - any other company simply adding it to general margins is quite obviously in the clear.

Or keep it as a rainy day fund against the next time one of their major markets goes insane with attempted extortion, possibly successfully next time? Their customers paid a price they were comfortable with —- if a company returns part of that to the customer, they disadvantage themselves compared to their competitors who do not do so in the next round of tariffs, since their competitors can use the rainy day fund to delay price rises, capturing customer spend (which is to say, competitor-voluntary-donation-to-customer spend).

Why would they do that when they could fund share buybacks, or pay it out to shareholders as dividends?

You knew what the price was when you paid for it. You weren't misled. What's the injustice?

Yes, it's a windfall for the business, and it would be nice for them to pass it on, but unless they promised to do it, that wasn't the deal.