NPR84%

The tariff refund process has begun for businesses. What about customers? 24%

By Stephan Bisaha0%

4/22/2026, 5:32:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Loss Aversion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.7% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 760 faulty-reasoning hits from 692 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.1% and a BS Rank of 24% (15,533 of 20,366 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.30% of the article peer group.

Will Chyrsanthos wanted something striking for his entryway bathroom. 
So last year, while doing home renovations, he imported a sky-blue concrete sink from Bulgaria. 
The ramp sink ended up costing him an extra $250 because of tariffs. 
When U.S Customs launched its online portal Monday to start the process of refunding $166 billion in tariff revenue, Chyrsanthos logged in to get the money back. 
But he soon found out the portal wasn't for most individual customers. 
Instead, the refunds would go to whoever directly paid Customs as the importer of record, often a U.S. company. 
For Chyrsanthos and millions of other American consumers, if they want a tariff refund, they will have to rely on the goodwill of companies to pass those refunds along, or on class action lawsuits to force a return. 
Chyrsanthos was pessimistic  but then he got a bit of news. 
The shipping company DHL, which he'd used to import his expensive sink, announced it would provide refunds for customers who had paid tariff fees to them directly. 
"Now that's unexpected and wonderful," Chyrsanthos says. 
FedEx and UPS also promised similar refunds for customers. 
For these shipping companies, it's an option because there is a clear paper trail of how much each client paid  and now is owed. 
But what about all of the other products Chyrsanthos bought for his Massachusetts home renovation? 
He has no such paper trail. 
The extra cost was baked into the final price of each item he bought, rather than listed as a separate fee on a shipping bill. 
He suspects the total price increase was in the thousands. 
"I have zero hope for recouping any of that," Chyrsanthos says. 
Retail companies are facing the same problem: They don't know how much of a tariff burden they passed on to each customer. 
And that is perhaps the biggest barrier stopping retailers from sharing whatever refunds they are able to claim from the government. 
"It's nearly impossible to determine how much individual consumers paid," says Terence Lau, dean of Syracuse University College of Law. 
That's because a product, like a TV, often has parts from multiple countries, and each was hit with different tariff rates. 
Those rates changed over time by presidential decree, which makes calculating a customer's actual cost even more difficult. 
Plus, the retailer likely absorbed some of that tariff expense. 
The tariff burden was also shared up and down the supply chain, between vendors, distributors and finally customers. 
"By time it gets down to the consumers, the whole tariff has been diluted," says Robert Shapiro, an international trade lawyer and partner at the law firm Thompson Coburn. 
Rebecca Melsky co-founded Princess Awesome, a clothing company that sells clothes for girls that include traditionally boy-coded images, like dresses with solar systems on them or lounge pants with pictures of dragons. 
She says she has no way to automatically determine how much each customer paid in tariffs, and calculating it individually for each transaction would be "incredibly laborious." 
Plus, Melsky says her company has already spent significant time dealing with tariffs. 
"That doesn't count in dollars, but time is worth money," Melsky says. 
To cope with tariffs, she raised prices and put up an online tariff tip jar for donations. 
Today, as a kind of refund, she is considering giving $10 in store credit to customers who contributed to the jar. 
Other retailers are also looking for other ways to pass recouped money along to customers without dealing with the headache of full refunds. 
Costco's CFO Gary Millerchip said on a recent earnings call that the company could pass along the returned tariff dollars as lower prices. 
Several class action lawsuits have been filed against large companies, arguing that since they shared the tariff cost with consumers, they should also share the tariff relief. 
Edwin Martinez, an engineer, paid specific tariff charges for online purchases of electronic components, like power connectors and pressure sensors. 
Now he's a little annoyed, knowing he likely won't get a refund. 
"I paid this extra tax, man," Martinez says. 
"Can I just have my money back?" 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 1.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Stephan Bisaha: 2.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic5.5%This article: 3.2%Stephan Bisaha: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Stephan Bisaha: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias3.6%This article: 2.6%Stephan Bisaha: 4.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 6.1%Stephan Bisaha: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion6.1%This article: 2.5%Stephan Bisaha: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 1.9%Stephan Bisaha: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect1.9%This article: 1.0%Stephan Bisaha: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias1.0%This article: 1.6%Stephan Bisaha: 2.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias1.6%This article: 13.7%Stephan Bisaha: 5.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error2.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Stephan Bisaha: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Stephan Bisaha: 6.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 5.9%Stephan Bisaha: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Stephan Bisaha: 2.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 2.2%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring2.2%This article: 5.2%Stephan Bisaha: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 7.2%Stephan Bisaha: 3.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion7.2%This article: 1.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question1.0%This article: 4.5%Stephan Bisaha: 3.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.9%Stephan Bisaha: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division3.9%This article: 5.1%Stephan Bisaha: 2.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.3%Stephan Bisaha: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.3%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.7%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.7%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.9%Stephan Bisaha: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote3.9%This article: 1.0%Stephan Bisaha: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephan Bisaha: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Stephan Bisaha: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.5%

692 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers23%attributed speech535writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageChyrsanthos • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageChyrsanthos • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTerence Lau • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shapiro • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageRebecca Melsky • 27 words • 100.0% coverageRebecca Melsky • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRebecca Melsky • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageGary Millerchip • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageEdwin Martinez • 8 words • 0.0% coverageEdwin Martinez • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rebecca Melsky

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words33% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote+51.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rebecca Melsky: 51.9%51.9%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%Rebecca Melsky: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.