Nintendon’t keep those refunds, please
Lawsuit demands Nintendo pass Trump tariff refunds on to its customers.
A Nintendo Switch at the Nintendo Store in New York City, on April 8, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | AFP
Two gamers who want tariff refunds sued Nintendo of America yesterday, alleging that the company intends to pocket refunds received from the government instead of giving money back to consumers who paid higher prices. The class action complaint seeks to represent a class including the two named plaintiffs and all other US residents who bought Nintendo products from February 2025 to February 2026.
“Unless restrained by this Court, Nintendo stands to recover the same tariff payments twice—once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds,” said the lawsuit filed in US District Court for the Western District of Washington. “Nintendo has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff-related overcharges to the consumers who actually paid them. This lawsuit seeks to prevent that unjust result.”
The plaintiffs, California resident Gregory Hoffert and Washington resident Prashant Sharan, “paid retail prices for those goods that were increased by Nintendo to account for the tariffs imposed on imported products,” and “would not have paid those higher prices absent the unlawful tariffs and Nintendo’s pass-through of those tariffs to consumers,” said the complaint filed by the Emery | Reddy, PC law firm.
In February, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump illegally imposed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs. The refund process is only just beginning, however.
The government opened an online portal for importers and customs brokers to submit tariff refund requests on Monday, and said it will take 60 to 90 days to process refunds. Over 330,000 importers paid a total of $166 billion in IEEPA duties as of March 4.
Nintendo sued US for full refunds
Nintendo appears worried that it won’t get a full refund from the Trump administration. Nintendo sued the Trump administration last month, seeking a court order that would prevent the government from withholding parts of the refunds.
The gamers’ court complaint against Nintendo includes a section on Nintendo’s lawsuit against the government. Nintendo’s lawsuit “requested refunds of all duties collected from Nintendo under those tariff orders,” and the gaming company “stands to recover substantial sums if tariff refunds are paid,” the class action complaint said.
“Nintendo now seeks to recover from the government duties whose economic burden was borne, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs and Class members,” the lawsuit said.
It’s no surprise that companies passed on the cost of tariffs in the form of higher prices, though consumers are bound to be angry if firms keep tariff refunds entirely to themselves. A similar lawsuit was filed against Costco, which has said it plans to use tariff refunds to lower future prices.
We asked Nintendo how it plans to use tariff refunds and for a response to the lawsuit, and will update this article if it provides any comment.
Lawsuit: Nintendo retains “ill-gotten profits”
The gamers’ lawsuit seems to take it for granted that Nintendo will keep all the profits it received from the tariff-related price hikes even after getting refunds. It alleges that Nintendo is guilty of unjust enrichment.
“Under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendant should not be permitted to retain the amount of the price increases obtained from Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, which Defendant has unjustly obtained as a result of its price increases on goods subject to unlawful tariffs,” the lawsuit said. “As it stands, Defendant has retained profits generated from its sales of products subject to tariff-related price increases and should not be permitted to retain those ill-gotten profits when it is seeking a refund of the duties it paid.”
The lawsuit also alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts. “Nintendo engaged in unfair acts by: (i) raising prices due to tariffs; (ii) failing to disclose that it intended to seek tariff refunds; and (iii) retaining tariff refunds despite having passed the costs to its customers,” the lawsuit said.
Of course, Nintendo didn’t know when it raised prices that the Supreme Court would strike down the tariffs the next year. It’s also unclear what it intends to do with tariff refunds that it will presumably receive sometime in the next 60 to 90 days.
Nintendo raised prices for Switch 2 accessories
The lawsuit points to price increases for Nintendo Switch 2 accessories that were announced in April 2025. The increases ranged from $1 to $10 per product. “For example, Nintendo raised the price of the Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller from $79.99 to $84.99 and the Nintendo Switch 2 Dock Set from $109.99 to $119.99,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit also mentions the August 2025 increases for the original Switch console, which ranged from $30 to $50 depending on the model. Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa told investors in May 2025 that “if tariffs are imposed, we recognize them as a part of the cost and incorporate them into the price,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit seeks a return “of all monies wrongfully obtained by Defendant.” It didn’t ask for a specific amount in damages, but said that federal court is the appropriate venue because the class includes people from multiple states and “the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.” Nintendo of America is headquartered in the Washington district where the complaint was filed.
Even if the Trump administration issues all owed refunds, Nintendo and other companies will still have an ongoing tariff problem. Trump reacted to his Supreme Court loss by imposing a 10 percent tariff, claiming he has the authority to do so under the Trade Act of 1974, and more Trade Act tariffs could be on the way. States have sued to block Trump’s new tariffs, and there may be another long round of litigation over whether the president can issue tariffs under the Trade Act.
Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.
