Nintendo Lawsuit: Why Gamers Are Suing for Refunds on Tariff-Affected Prices

The Billion-Dollar Dispute: Nintendo Takes on Washington

Around one month ago, Nintendo, through its U.S. subsidiary Nintendo of America, filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of International Trade against the US government over the “initiation and administration of unlawful trade measures” last year.¹ Specifically, Nintendo referred to the government’s reciprocal tariff policy, which was eventually struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.² Nintendo are seeking a refund of the tariffs plus interest since their imposition.³  

The complaint accuses the US government and several of its agencies, such as the US Department of the Treasury, Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Commerce, and more, of collecting “more than $200 billion in tariffs on imports from nearly all countries“.⁴ Furthermore, the complaint claimed that the U.S. President Donald Trump does not even have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.⁵ 

The company claims that the tariffs directly affected their business by forcing them to delay the start of pre-order sales in the U.S. for the Nintendo Switch 2 console.⁶ Furthermore, the company’s lawyers argue that they have the standing to sue as “…it is the importer of record for goods that were subject to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act duties…“,⁷ with most of its hardware and accessories manufactured in Vietnam and China.⁸ 

The trade court has previously ordered the U.S. government to refund tariffs in a separate suit filed by another company.⁹ Hence, Nintendo is just one of over a thousand companies suing the U.S. government over these tariffs, joined by other giants such as FedEx and Costco.¹⁰ 

Even with the pending lawsuits and the tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court, President Trump has imposed a new 10% tariff in response, meant to replace the outlawed ones, using a “never-used law known as Section 122“.¹¹ 

So far, Nintendo increased its Switch 2 accessories prices, but the console price remained quite stable.¹² Nevertheless, the company warned that the price could nevertheless change depending on market conditions, with Nintendo’s president, Shuntaro Furukawa, stating: “Our basic policy is that for any country or region, if tariffs are imposed, we recognise them as part of the cost and incorporate them into the price“.¹³  

Meanwhile, the U.S. government announced the start of their refund process, with companies receiving as much as USD 160 Billion.¹⁴ 

Double Recovery? The Consumer Backlash

In response to the lawsuits filed against the US government, two Nintendo customers decided to file a class-action lawsuit against Nintendo, alleging unjust enrichment (“where one party benefits (is enriched) at the expense of another party in circumstances that are considered unfair or unjust”),¹⁵ as they believe the company intends to benefit both by raising prices for consumers, and by seeking compensation from the U.S. government.¹⁶ 

The suit was filed in Washington, by Gregory Hoffert of California and Prashant Sharan from Washington, on behalf of American consumers who purchased tariff-affected Nintendo products between February 1st to February 24th, 2026.¹⁷

The class-action lawsuit claims that if Nintendo recovers the tariffs, it would “constitute unjust enrichment and violate Washington state consumer protection law“,¹⁸ explaining that: “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“.¹⁹ Instead, the plaintiffs claim that “tariff money should make its way back to the players, who paid for the higher prices implemented because of those tariffs”.²⁰

The lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the class-action suit stated:

“In practical terms, Nintendo stands to receive a windfall: it has already recouped tariff costs from consumers through higher prices, and it now stands in line to recover the same unlawful tariff payments from the federal government”.²¹

They further argued that Nintendo, in reality, didn’t face much financial hardship caused by the tariffs, because those were directly passed along to customers through price increases: “Nintendo now seeks to recover from the government duties whose economic burden was borne, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs and Class members”.²² To strengthen their argument, the lawyers argue that during the tariff period, Nintendo reported “strong, and in some periods improving, financials“.²³

While Nintendo faces this lawsuit, the other companies suing the U.S. government for the tariffs are also met with similar class-action suits.²⁴ For example, FedEX was accused of billing customers itemised fees tied directly to the tariff duties.²⁵ One of the plaintiffs alleges that he “was charged $36 in tariff-related fees — $21 in IEEPA duties and $15 in ancillary brokerage and clearance fees — for a single purchase of tennis shoes shipped from Germany”.²⁶

Stephen Totilo of Game File approached Nintendo and asked whether they are planning to pass their refund from the U.S. government on to customers who had paid increased prices, but noted that the company avoided answering the question, simply stating: “We can confirm that we filed a request. We have nothing else to share on this topic”.²⁷ 

Totilo also approached expert Don McGowan, former chief legal officer for The Pokémon Company for his take on the class-action lawsuit. McGowan was skeptical, arguing: “I have exceptional difficulty seeing how this is a valid lawsuit. There’s nothing distinct between raising prices because of tariffs and raising prices because you just want to make more money. There’s no legal obligation to keep your margins low. Nintendo didn’t receive tariff funds as a fiduciary or with any legal obligation to return them to the consumer”.²⁸ Nevertheless, McGown was sympathetic to the plaintiffs who he thinks may not realise that, to him, their case is rather weak, or nonexistent.²⁹

David Caracsole of Wccftech also believes a win is improbable, stating: “It feels unlikely that any individual party could win a case against such a litigious company as Nintendo, but stranger David vs. Goliath stories have happened”.³⁰

The Cost of Instability: Why Geopolitics is Now a Core Industry Risk

The legal situation between Nintendo, the U.S. government, and Nintendo’s consumer base is a fascinating demonstration of the volatility currently plaguing the gaming industry. Importantly, we are seeing how geopolitics, once a rather distant concern for the average player, now directly affects all market players. The situation is not isolated. Just recently, Sony announced price hikes for their PS5, which were largely attributed to the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East, with Iran’s attack on Qatar’s natural gas export facility heavily disrupting helium, which is critical in semiconductor manufacturing.³¹

Although experts seem to believe that the class-action suit is unlikely to succeed, the message from the gaming community is clear: customers can no longer be treated as a ‘shock absorber’ for a corporation’s political overhead. Gamers expect increased price transparency and corporate resilience, rather than a reactive price hike that is passed down instantly. 

The author believes that companies in the gaming industry should no longer view geopolitical instability, which is growing in frequency, as an excuse for price increases. Instead, the companies must treat it as a strategic risk they are expected to be prepared for and manage internally.

1.  Sophie McEvoy, ‘Nintendo of America sues US government over tariffs’ (GamesIndustry.biz, 9 March 2026) https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-of-america-sues-us-government-over-tariffs accessed 23 April 2026.
   ↩︎
2.  Jiji, ‘Nintendo sues U.S. government over reciprocal tariffs’ (The Japan Times, 7 March 2026) https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2026/03/07/nintendo-lawsuit-us-tariffs/ accessed 23 April 2026.
   ↩︎
3.  Sophie McEvoy, (n 1).
   ↩︎
4.  Sophie McEvoy, (n 1).
   ↩︎
5.  Jiji, (n 2).
   ↩︎
6.  Jiji, (n 2).
   ↩︎
7.  Sophie McEvoy, (n 1).
   ↩︎
8.  Sophie McEvoy, (n 1).
   ↩︎
9.  Jiji, (n 2).
   ↩︎
10.  Sophie McEvoy, (n 1).
    ↩︎
11.  Sophie McEvoy, (n 1).
    ↩︎
12.  Sophie McEvoy, (n 1).
    ↩︎
13.  Sophie McEvoy, (n 1).
    ↩︎
14.  Stephen Totilo, ‘Gamers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds’ (Game File, 22 April 2026) https://www.gamefile.news/p/gamers-sue-nintendo-over-tariff-refunds accessed 23 April 2026.
    ↩︎
15.  Hanne & Co, ‘Unjust enrichment: explained’ (Hanne & Co, 28 July 2022) https://hanne.co.uk/unjust-enrichment-explained/ accessed 23 April 2026.
    ↩︎
16.  Vikki Blake, ‘Gamers sue Nintendo over tariff refunds’ (GamesIndustry.biz, 22 April 2026) https://www.gamesindustry.biz/gamers-sue-nintendo-over-tariff-refunds accessed 23 April 2026.
    ↩︎
17.  ibid.
    ↩︎
18.  ibid.
    ↩︎
19.  ibid.
    ↩︎
20.  David Carcasole, ‘As Nintendo Sues the US Government Over “Unlawful” Tariffs, Gamers Are Now Suing Nintendo to Get That Tariff Money Back’ (Wccftech, 22 April 2026) https://wccftech.com/nintendo-sued-by-gamers-for-us-tariff-money/ accessed 23 April 2026.
    ↩︎
21.  Nicole Carpenter, ‘Gamers Sue Nintendo To Get Tariff Money Back’ (Aftermath, 22 April 2026) https://aftermath.site/gamers-sue-nintendo-tariffs/ accessed 23 April 2026.
    ↩︎
22.  ibid.
    ↩︎
23.  ibid.
    ↩︎
24.  Stephen Totilo, (n 14).
    ↩︎
25.  Lori B Leskin, Brandon W Neuschafer and Elie Salamon, ‘The Next Wave of Tariff Litigation: Consumer Class Actions’ (Arnold & Porter, 6 March 2026) https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/advisories/2026/03/the-next-wave-of-tariff-litigation accessed 23 April 2026.
    ↩︎
26.  ibid.
    ↩︎
27.  Stephen Totilo, (n 14).
    ↩︎
28.  Stephen Totilo, (n 14).
    ↩︎
29.  Stephen Totilo, (n 14).
    ↩︎
30.  David Carcasole, (n 19).
    ↩︎
31.  Annie Sharma, ‘Why Is PS5 Getting More Expensive? War And AI Have A Lot To Do With It’ (ABP Live, 31 March 2026) https://news.abplive.com/gaming/playstation-5-price-hike-why-ai-industry-chip-shortage-impacts-gaming-consoles-1833857 accessed 23 April 2026.
    ↩︎