In August 2025, Nintendo announced that it would raise the prices of the Nintendo Switch 2 console due to market conditions. At the time, the Trump tariffs were in effect starting with a 24% reciprocal tariff. Later, a negotiated 15% reciprocal tariff was imposed on most products imported from Japan.
While Nintendo stated that the tariffs did not play a role in the price increase, they also stated that if the tariffs were to continue, future price increases could be on the table.
Soon after the Supreme Court invalidated the Trump tariffs, Nintendo filed a refund lawsuit against the federal government. Other major businesses in various sectors filed similar lawsuits.
In April 2026, two months after the Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s reciprocal tariff against Japan, a class action lawsuit was filed against Nintendo demanding that the tariff refund be given to its customers. The lawsuit argues that Nintendo would be unjustly and unfairly enriched because it would receive additional profits from the price increase in addition to the tariff refund from the federal government.
Nintendo filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. They argued that its customers got exactly what they paid for and so the unjust enrichment argument does not apply. They also claim that the plaintiff did not make a plausible argument that Nintendo’s enrichment was unjust. Lastly, Nintendo contends that completed retail transactions cannot be reopened simply because later events reduced its costs.
So who is right here?
From a basic, intuitive perspective, it would be unfair for the customer to pay higher prices due to a tariff which was later invalidated. But there are legal and other factors to consider as well.
As far as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is concerned, they recognize Nintendo as the importer of record, and only Nintendo will be refunded. CBP does not require the importer of record to forward the tariff refund to the final consumer or anyone else.
Second, Nintendo’s enrichment may not be as high as the plaintiffs think. Nintendo likely incurred significant legal and consulting expenses in monitoring the tariffs and pursuing its refund claim. Also, Nintendo may still be subject to the Section 122 tariffs which are still being collected. There appears to be no tariff exclusions for video game consoles.
Even if Nintendo was enriched, was it unjust or unfair as the plaintiffs claim? Nintendo was not involved in the enactment of the tariffs. Nor did Nintendo tell its customers that they would receive a refund if the Trump tariffs are invalidated. While Nintendo did not give a straight answer on the tariff issue, other factors can contribute to price increases. For example, skyrocketing RAM chip prices could have been a major factor.
In the final analysis, Nintendo is a business whose goal is to make a profit. Otherwise, eventually it will be game over for Mario and Pokemon. Despite the announced price increase, the Nintendo Switch 2 ended its first 12 months on sale as the second-fastest-selling hardware in U.S. history. Were most of these customers hoping that Nintendo would compensate them if the tariffs were invalidated? Or were they willing to pay Nintendo’s asking price to be an early adopter? The outcome of this lawsuit (and similar lawsuits) could establish a precedent for how tariff refunds are treated when businesses have already passed some or all of those costs on to consumers.
Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at stevenchungatl@gmail.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.
The post A Class Action Lawsuit Will Determine Whether Nintendo Customers Are Entitled To Tariff Refunds appeared first on Above the Law.
In August 2025, Nintendo announced that it would raise the prices of the Nintendo Switch 2 console due to market conditions. At the time, the Trump tariffs were in effect starting with a 24% reciprocal tariff. Later, a negotiated 15% reciprocal tariff was imposed on most products imported from Japan.
While Nintendo stated that the tariffs did not play a role in the price increase, they also stated that if the tariffs were to continue, future price increases could be on the table.
Soon after the Supreme Court invalidated the Trump tariffs, Nintendo filed a refund lawsuit against the federal government. Other major businesses in various sectors filed similar lawsuits.
In April 2026, two months after the Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s reciprocal tariff against Japan, a class action lawsuit was filed against Nintendo demanding that the tariff refund be given to its customers. The lawsuit argues that Nintendo would be unjustly and unfairly enriched because it would receive additional profits from the price increase in addition to the tariff refund from the federal government.
Nintendo filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. They argued that its customers got exactly what they paid for and so the unjust enrichment argument does not apply. They also claim that the plaintiff did not make a plausible argument that Nintendo’s enrichment was unjust. Lastly, Nintendo contends that completed retail transactions cannot be reopened simply because later events reduced its costs.
So who is right here?
From a basic, intuitive perspective, it would be unfair for the customer to pay higher prices due to a tariff which was later invalidated. But there are legal and other factors to consider as well.
As far as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is concerned, they recognize Nintendo as the importer of record, and only Nintendo will be refunded. CBP does not require the importer of record to forward the tariff refund to the final consumer or anyone else.
Second, Nintendo’s enrichment may not be as high as the plaintiffs think. Nintendo likely incurred significant legal and consulting expenses in monitoring the tariffs and pursuing its refund claim. Also, Nintendo may still be subject to the Section 122 tariffs which are still being collected. There appears to be no tariff exclusions for video game consoles.
Even if Nintendo was enriched, was it unjust or unfair as the plaintiffs claim? Nintendo was not involved in the enactment of the tariffs. Nor did Nintendo tell its customers that they would receive a refund if the Trump tariffs are invalidated. While Nintendo did not give a straight answer on the tariff issue, other factors can contribute to price increases. For example, skyrocketing RAM chip prices could have been a major factor.
In the final analysis, Nintendo is a business whose goal is to make a profit. Otherwise, eventually it will be game over for Mario and Pokemon. Despite the announced price increase, the Nintendo Switch 2 ended its first 12 months on sale as the second-fastest-selling hardware in U.S. history. Were most of these customers hoping that Nintendo would compensate them if the tariffs were invalidated? Or were they willing to pay Nintendo’s asking price to be an early adopter? The outcome of this lawsuit (and similar lawsuits) could establish a precedent for how tariff refunds are treated when businesses have already passed some or all of those costs on to consumers.
Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at stevenchungatl@gmail.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.
The post A Class Action Lawsuit Will Determine Whether Nintendo Customers Are Entitled To Tariff Refunds appeared first on Above the Law.
