Nintendo Argues It Should Not Refund Illegal Tariffs To Consumers

Nintendo's pricing is in the spotlight, this time in U.S. courts, as the company defends increases to Switch prices following tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.

In an article on his GameFile newsletter, reporter Stephen Totilo is following a class action in Hoffert et al v. Nintendo, where plaintiffs are arguing whether the company should have passed on U.S. tariff refunds to customers, after Nintendo raised prices for the Original Switch and Switch 2 controllers.

The company's lawyers are arguing that the "sweeping" and "constantly changing" tariffs, which have since been ruled as illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, should not be refunded to customers because consumers "received exactly what they bargained and paid for."

That hasn't stopped Nintendo (or over 1,000 other companies, according to the Associated Press) themselves from suing the government in March, claiming "injury" suffered by the companies in paying the tariffs. Shortly after, this case was then filed, with the plaintiffs saying that Nintendo would effectively be double-dipping, because the company would effectively be benefiting from both refunds paid by the government, but also from keeping any tariffs that consumers had paid Nintendo.

Nintendo says that unlike other businesses, the company did not simply pass on the entirety of the tariffs to consumers, but rather "imposed selective price adjustments" and "chose to bear the costs of tariffs on some of its most popular products". The company says, as an example, it did not increase the cost of the Switch 2, presumably because, as a new console, an increased price would have been less attractive.

As Eurogamer points out, Nintendo argues it would not be possible to calculate the exact tariff amounts related to each price increase, and therefore is arguing for the case to be dismissed, and has recommended private arbitration to deal with the class action participants.

Nintendo's not the only company being sued by consumers. Per IGN, Sony is also in court. Walker et al v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC was filed in May, and the plaintiffs in that case also claim consumers are entitled to compensation, arguing that Sony would have received a "substantial windfall", effectively the same argument as Hoffert's class action against Nintendo. Other companies are being more forgiving, with Supply Chain Drive reporting that FedEx is promising to pass the refunds of the illegal tariffs back onto consumers.

This isn't the only regulatory action happening over at Mario HQ. Over in the EU, Nintendo is about to discontinue the original Switch and make changes to the Switch 2 and various peripherals, amid changes to battery laws requiring consumers to be able to replace their own batteries.