Lawsuit: Nintendo is getting tariff refunds—its customers should get them instead
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Given the compliance and legal costs the companies impacted by tariffs have endured, it is very complex to impossible to know exactly how much to refund to any one customer. Plus, if Nintendo (or Costco, who was also sued for this same thing) refunded every dollar of tariff refunds received, they’re then out the millions in compliance expense. It’s messy no matter what you do. And this is a very good argument for why these stupid fucking tariffs should have been stopped right away via a TRO rather than being allowed to remain in place illegally (thanks for nothing, SCOTUS).
Upvote
224
(234
/
-10)
Has anyone tried suing in Small Claims instead? If you go with the Class Action, you'll probably get a 25 cent coupon towards your next purchase on the Nintendo eShop. Small Claims is a $75 fee in California for up to $12,500 in damages.
I don't know. Seems like it might be worth it.
I don't know. Seems like it might be worth it.
Upvote
9
(33
/
-24)
thinking out loud here, if nintendo raised their prices by $10 due to tarrifs and someone sues in small claims to get that back, then that person would need to have bought 8+ nintendo items to make back the cost for small claims. given that superfans are prob audience that buy that many items, not sure that's the same customer base that would sue
Upvote
38
(41
/
-3)
Nintendo submits a patent for a real-life mechanic whereby a corporation passes along costs to customers and then recovers those costs from the entity which created them, without passing the cost recovery on to the customers.
Upvote
52
(58
/
-6)
I bet a few hundred million dollars could help them figure it out.....
Upvote
-13
(4
/
-17)
Upvote
-19
(8
/
-27)
The problem is the end customer doesn't even know how much they're owed back. You'd need to go through discovery with Nintendo to figure out what Nintendo actually paid in tariffs and associated costs, and what impact, if any, that had on the final price of the product. If Nintendo ate part of the tariffs, the customer isn't owed back that portion of it.
That's not going to get worked out in small claims, that level of discovery is only going to happen in a class action lawsuit.
You can always exclude yourself from the class action and pursue your own legal action though.
That said, I think this case against Nintendo is flimsier than the case against Costco. At least with Costco, there's evidence that Costco tries to keep their profit margins within a certain percentage to pass the savings on to consumers. With Nintendo, they've never publicly stated their profit margins or made any sort of commitment to keeping prices as low as possible. In fact, historically Nintendo has always made a profit off its consoles instead of taking a loss on them to be made up in game sales/subscriptions, like Microsoft and Sony have. Nintendo has also kept their game prices higher, even on the older games, where other companies drop prices on older games. So Nintendo historically has kept their profit margins as high as possible, and people buy their products anyway, Them making an even higher profit margin isn't a violation of anything promised to consumers.
And in general, unless the tariff was listed as a separate line item on your purchase, the price you pay is the price you agreed to pay. If it was too high, then you shouldn't have bought it. But you're not owed money on a retroactive corrective in a cost to the manufacturer any more than you're owed money when a product drops in price after you bought it.
On a personal level, I did one personal import purchase during the tariffs that I individually paid the tariff before delivery, while I'm sure I bought countless items with higher prices due to tariffs the manufacturer or retailer paid. I'll seek a refund on the tariff I personally paid, but I'm not expecting any partial refunds on any of those other products I purchased.
Upvote
112
(113
/
-1)
They're doing this all wrong... First the wholesalers have to sue Nintendo for their money, then the retailers have to sue the wholesalers for their money, then finally the customers have to sue the retailers... Finally the customers get $1 each.
Upvote
62
(62
/
0)
No, they initially delayed pre-orders of the Switch 2 after Trump announced the tariffs
https://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2025...h-2-preorders-to-assess-trump-tariff-effects/
Then they raised the prices of some announced accessories, although the Switch 2 console price stayed the same:
https://meincmagazine.com/gaming/2025...h-2-accessory-prices-amid-tariff-uncertainty/
Then, well after the tariffs went into effect, they raised the price of the original Switch hardware:
https://meincmagazine.com/gadgets/202...do-hikes-prices-for-original-switch-consoles/
There was some "uncertainty" in the tariffs, not because they hadn't been announced, but because Trump changes his mind so frequently you never know if the thing he announced will actually take effect, or he'll change his mind at the last minute, but Nintendo didn't raise prices based on just a "prospect" of tariffs, but on tariffs that were actually announced, and then well after they were in effect.
Upvote
47
(47
/
0)
There were no "ill gotten" profits. Nintendo can charge as much as they want for a Nintendo. Nobody has to buy one.
That being said, I hope Costco will pass along their tarrifs refunds because Costco famously keeps margins to a minimum to keep Costco prices low, and Costco has all the purchase info tracked by member, and they issue annual rewards credits, so they have all the data and mechanisms in place to pay those tarrifs forward to customers. Costco makes most of their profits from membership fees, so the good will from such a refund will increase good will and future memberships.
That being said, I hope Costco will pass along their tarrifs refunds because Costco famously keeps margins to a minimum to keep Costco prices low, and Costco has all the purchase info tracked by member, and they issue annual rewards credits, so they have all the data and mechanisms in place to pay those tarrifs forward to customers. Costco makes most of their profits from membership fees, so the good will from such a refund will increase good will and future memberships.
Upvote
65
(74
/
-9)
This is going to be a sad point in history where all this tariff money just vanishes from public view and was pocketed by people with no way to trace it back. The tariffs were sloppily implemented, changing constantly, and the reaction to businesses on how to handle it was equally as sloppy and confusing and not done consistently, so there's no real way for normal people to even try to get their money back. I don't mean to be defeatist but there's more fruitful things with more plausible chance of success to go after, and multiple layers of obfuscated money transferring isn't very viable.
Upvote
-1
(10
/
-11)
The tariffs were a horrible, horrible idea, but Nintendo isn't at fault, and while it would be nice of them to "return" the money, I'm not even sure Nintendo is the company who paid the tariffs. It's possible Amazon or Costco or Target paid the tariffs; it would depend on the vagaries of corporate and accounting structures.
Overall, yes, Americans are paying thousands of dollars more than necessary for goods, and at least at one point in time, that money was ending up in the US Treasury. But it wasn't a direct transfer, and if Donald Trump weren't a moron, he'd understand that 19th century economic tools that never really worked well aren't a good way to fix problems in 2026, and even if they were, they would require some amount of planning and forethought. But he's . . . moron isn't even the right term. I occasionally think about what it's like, inside his head, and I don't think I can. It's like trying to read the color blue.
Overall, yes, Americans are paying thousands of dollars more than necessary for goods, and at least at one point in time, that money was ending up in the US Treasury. But it wasn't a direct transfer, and if Donald Trump weren't a moron, he'd understand that 19th century economic tools that never really worked well aren't a good way to fix problems in 2026, and even if they were, they would require some amount of planning and forethought. But he's . . . moron isn't even the right term. I occasionally think about what it's like, inside his head, and I don't think I can. It's like trying to read the color blue.
Upvote
67
(69
/
-2)
The issue is less about courts than it is about the process. Regardless of the court system, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. That means discovery is going to be expensive and time-consuming for each person to do that individually. Since this would be a records search, you'd need an expert in that, and a CPA at LEAST who knows financials and how to find what was paid for the tariffs by the Plaintiff ALONE.
Class actions combine resources, and average things, making a finding more likely and relevant, even if the judgement is pennies on the dollar.
In the end the defendant wins. A single lawsuit settled out of court for pennies is nothing to them. The larger settlements are still pennies, but it's a lot more.
There are no penalties in civil suits that seek compensation UNLESS there's legal malfeasance proven as part of the trial. You can only get what you lost, plus court costs.
It's a useful venue for private one-on-one civil matters. But for something big, or against a corporation, unless you're already wealthy, it will probably cost you a lot more (in time) than it's worth, or that you lost to them in tariffs.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
When the president is declaring tariffs on, then off, then kinda on, then off for some things, the word 'prospect' becomes meaningless. Between when the product is loaded on a boat and when it clears customs, businesses need to be prepared to pay whatever price the dartboard lands on that day, and pass that random charge on to downstream distributors and retailers who also expect a reliable price.
And if I'm a customer who bought a pro controller at a local game store, who owes me ten bucks? The store, their distributor, the manufacturer, or a pumpkin man in Washington who apparently broke the law?
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
OK, but who would you sue? It's not Nintendo; you almost certainly didn't buy anything from Nintendo. You have no direct economic relationship with Nintendo. Would it be Amazon/Target/Costco/WalMart? Maybe, but they probably didn't pay the tariff. Maybe they did, it probably depends. But they almost certainly can't tell you how much of whatever money you gave them they gave to whoever they paid the tariff to. So what are you suing them for, and how much are you asking for? It's likely that you are at least 3 or 4 corporate entities away from the tariff.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
They don't have a legal standing, the company paid the tariffs, they are a cost. Then the customers paid the price set by the company, that took into account their costs. If Nintendo decides to give the money back or not, it's up to them.
If a supplier gives Nintendo a discount at year end, everybody that purchased during that year isn't entitled to a discount.
If a supplier gives Nintendo a discount at year end, everybody that purchased during that year isn't entitled to a discount.
Upvote
43
(45
/
-2)
Because of how economic damages work out*: The government should reimburse the companies for the tariffs collected AND reimburse the customers for the price increase on the goods sold. Yes, government pays twice what they took, and it's still not enough to make both Nintendo and Customers whole.
*TLDR, when the company raises prices in response to the tariffs, both the seller and buyer are simultaneously suffering a greater amount of economic damage than the tariffs are collecting. We can assume that raised prices cut into sales deeper than the reimbursement covers, because otherwise the company would've just charged the higher price from the start. We can also assume that the customer suffers some missed opportunities from not having that extra money between when the tariff is collected and reimbursed, hence their economic suffering is also greater than price inflation.
*TLDR, when the company raises prices in response to the tariffs, both the seller and buyer are simultaneously suffering a greater amount of economic damage than the tariffs are collecting. We can assume that raised prices cut into sales deeper than the reimbursement covers, because otherwise the company would've just charged the higher price from the start. We can also assume that the customer suffers some missed opportunities from not having that extra money between when the tariff is collected and reimbursed, hence their economic suffering is also greater than price inflation.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
The argument here is nonsensical:
(ii) who is Nintendo meant to disclose to and when? At the time of sale to customers Nintendo didn’t know what the courts would decide on tariff legality. Post court decision, everyone is claiming.
(iii) its primary customers are retailers. Is Jeff Bezos in on this class action?
(i) tariffs were at point of application a legal requirement and the intended government policy was to force prices up on imported goods, therefore changing balance of trade. The whole point of tariffs is to raise prices.
(ii) who is Nintendo meant to disclose to and when? At the time of sale to customers Nintendo didn’t know what the courts would decide on tariff legality. Post court decision, everyone is claiming.
(iii) its primary customers are retailers. Is Jeff Bezos in on this class action?
Upvote
21
(25
/
-4)
Read the NYT's reporting on the SCOTUS' "shadow docket" this weekend.
What happened to the John Roberts that was so concerned about lasting damage before the court had a chance to weigh in?
Sounds a lot like what the illegal tariffs did, no?
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Ok, but then, at least in theory, the money that the government pays need to come from somewhere, ie, taxes, or they have to print money, which leads to inflation, classically. So assuming you’re a US citizen, you’d have to pay in taxes whatever penalty the government paid you. And note that the government was also (in theory) spending the tariff money on things (or, supposedly, like five different things based on the promises Trump was making), so again, that money needs to come from somewhere, so taxes or inflation (or not spending money in a way that’s almost certainly unconstitutional, but what are the chances of that?)
So great job, everyone. Totally not a clusterfuck.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
This is all nonsense.
Companies followed the law imposed on them and paid money to the government.
Customers purchased their product at the agreed-upon price.
Now there's a refund of the money the company paid to the government, but that has nothing to do with the second transaction. If customers didn't want to pay the price charged they were at liberty to decline (and perhaps chosen a made-in-america alternative, if they wanted to avoid tariff impacts).
If American customers feel like they got screwed in the process they should pursue their government at the ballot box and elsewhere, not go after companies that were also left to deal with chaos and were gouged. The fact that no American alternative is available for most of this stuff reinforces how silly the entire policy is.
Companies followed the law imposed on them and paid money to the government.
Customers purchased their product at the agreed-upon price.
Now there's a refund of the money the company paid to the government, but that has nothing to do with the second transaction. If customers didn't want to pay the price charged they were at liberty to decline (and perhaps chosen a made-in-america alternative, if they wanted to avoid tariff impacts).
If American customers feel like they got screwed in the process they should pursue their government at the ballot box and elsewhere, not go after companies that were also left to deal with chaos and were gouged. The fact that no American alternative is available for most of this stuff reinforces how silly the entire policy is.
Upvote
25
(32
/
-7)
This sounds like something Nintendo should be addressing through a goodwill measure rather than a lawsuit in the courts.
End result is you still get a 50 cent digital coupon or something.. but the lawyers don't take home tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars.
End result is you still get a 50 cent digital coupon or something.. but the lawyers don't take home tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars.
Upvote
-1
(4
/
-5)
This being America, the employers will then sue the employees for the unjustly claimed refunds.
After all, if Nintendo owes the money back to purchasers for having to pay a higher price, corporate logic holds that employers who had to pay employees more due to the inflation this caused are actually the ones who deserve the money back.
If Nintendo shouldn’t get the refunds if purchasers had to bear the costs, America’s poor corporations, who are legally people too, shouldn’t be disadvantaged by employees who both pushed for higher salaries to cover this tariff driven inflation AND got a refund.
Even better, the same layers can run both class action lawsuits. They can sue Nintendo and settle for $100m where $30m goes to the law firm and the other $70m is paid in kind in $1 vouchers off your next $100 purchase. Then they can sue the winners if the first lawsuit for the $70m they never actually got, settle for $50m, take $15m in fees and return ten cent vouchers to the employers.
Sure, no one else wins. But now the lawyers have $45m in fees. That’s the American way!
After all, if Nintendo owes the money back to purchasers for having to pay a higher price, corporate logic holds that employers who had to pay employees more due to the inflation this caused are actually the ones who deserve the money back.
If Nintendo shouldn’t get the refunds if purchasers had to bear the costs, America’s poor corporations, who are legally people too, shouldn’t be disadvantaged by employees who both pushed for higher salaries to cover this tariff driven inflation AND got a refund.
Even better, the same layers can run both class action lawsuits. They can sue Nintendo and settle for $100m where $30m goes to the law firm and the other $70m is paid in kind in $1 vouchers off your next $100 purchase. Then they can sue the winners if the first lawsuit for the $70m they never actually got, settle for $50m, take $15m in fees and return ten cent vouchers to the employers.
Sure, no one else wins. But now the lawyers have $45m in fees. That’s the American way!
Upvote
-16
(3
/
-19)
Things get even more complicated when you factor in how manufacturers and retailers want to build fixed percentage margins into their sales channels. For example:
Original widget COGS is $10. Manufacturer sells it to retailer for $20. Retailer sells it to consumer for $30.
Widget COGS with an extra $1 in tariffs is now $11. Manufacturer sells it to retailer for $22. Retailer sells it to consumer for $33.
That $1 tariff resulted in a $3 price increase to the consumer so that everyone could maintain their same percentage margins. Where do you even begin to make up that $2 beyond the tariff refund...
(This example assumes no one wanted to reduce their margins.)
Edit: left out percentage.
Original widget COGS is $10. Manufacturer sells it to retailer for $20. Retailer sells it to consumer for $30.
Widget COGS with an extra $1 in tariffs is now $11. Manufacturer sells it to retailer for $22. Retailer sells it to consumer for $33.
That $1 tariff resulted in a $3 price increase to the consumer so that everyone could maintain their same percentage margins. Where do you even begin to make up that $2 beyond the tariff refund...
(This example assumes no one wanted to reduce their margins.)
Edit: left out percentage.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
These suits aren't going to go anywhere. The consumer price wasn't advertised as $goods + $tariffs, it was just $price.
If federal taxes are cut can you sue manufacturers for a refund because their taxes are lower?
If gas/transportation costs go down after this item nonsense settles can you sue companies to make them lower their prices?
The consumer also didn't pay the tariff. They didn't even purchase directly from Nintendo -- they purchased from an intermediary. Is the retailer also entitled to sue and recover tariff costs? Can the consumer also sue the retailer? If you start going down that hole you'll never reach the bottom.
If federal taxes are cut can you sue manufacturers for a refund because their taxes are lower?
If gas/transportation costs go down after this item nonsense settles can you sue companies to make them lower their prices?
The consumer also didn't pay the tariff. They didn't even purchase directly from Nintendo -- they purchased from an intermediary. Is the retailer also entitled to sue and recover tariff costs? Can the consumer also sue the retailer? If you start going down that hole you'll never reach the bottom.
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
The only companies that "benefitted" from any of this were the companies that bought up futures on tariff refunds at 30 cents on the dollar. You know, people like Commerce Secretary Lutnick's sons.
The costs imposed on companies that actually make and import things were well in excess of the tariff bill, for the increased cost of logistics, the loss of sales, the challenges with cash flow, and the like.
The costs imposed on companies that actually make and import things were well in excess of the tariff bill, for the increased cost of logistics, the loss of sales, the challenges with cash flow, and the like.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
So, lawyers pocket millions and customers get 100 Nintendo points for a future purchase if they reply via mail to the class action lawsuit in time.
Upvote
-3
(3
/
-6)
What’s the tort here? The customer got the exact product they bargained for at the exact price they bargained for. This could even get thrown out simply for failing to claim a valid tort, not to mention all the other potential grounds for being tossed.
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
This is essentially the problem: the tariffs caused more damage than the government made from them, so it literally cannot make everyone whole through refunds. In addition to the obvious increased costs and decreased sales, companies probably had to close product lines down, lay off employees, skip giving out bonuses and raises, etc. There was a lot of harm committed against everyone in the chain, from the producers to the consumers.
Consumers absolutely should be made whole, they're less able to weather this sort of thing than giant corporations are, but I don't see how it's even possible.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
In a way that's likely correct because Nintendo has binding arbitration. There isn't going to be a class action.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Putting Nintendo aside, the tariff situation has become such a mess. American customers mostly paid for the tariffs, the government essentially taxed American customers and gave the money to corporations. Apart from providing the lowest tax rates to corporations (ex: "Meta avoided approximately $13.7 billion in federal income taxes in 2025 due to a record low 3.5% effective tax rate on $79 billion in U.S. income") and to top it all off, we have a socialist administration, it saved Intel, now it's saving Spirit Airlines with a bailout.
It makes perfect sense why the stock market can only go up while the economy keeps getting worse.
It makes perfect sense why the stock market can only go up while the economy keeps getting worse.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
This lawsuit is meritless. Nintendo did not charge customers a tariff fee. They raised prices. Companies can charge customers whatever they want. There are no legal "principles of equity and good conscience". Nintendo gaining more profit from tariff refunds is the same as their gaining more profit from reducing shipping costs and negotiating a better price on components. Anything a company makes on the back end is legal, fair and reasonable. Customers were free not to buy Nintendo products.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
This is same as what Microsoft, Sony, Walmart, target, home Depot, any major corporation did. Are there about to be lawsuits against every corporation for this? Normal people already been screwed, they ain't getting shit back.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)