Nintendo Sued the Government Over Tariffs — Then Consumers Sued Nintendo

Two interlocking lawsuits — one filed by Nintendo, one filed against Nintendo — are reshaping the legal aftermath of President Trump’s sweeping 2025 tariffs on imported goods. Nintendo of America filed suit against the US government on March 6, 2026, in the US Court of International Trade, demanding a full refund of tariff duties paid under executive orders Nintendo calls unlawful, with interest. Six weeks later, two consumers sued Nintendo in US federal court in Seattle, arguing that Nintendo already collected those tariff costs from shoppers through higher retail prices and cannot now pocket a second payment from the government without passing any of it back to the people who actually bore the financial burden.

Both cases flow from the same event: the Supreme Court’s ruling on February 20, 2026, that President Trump had no legal authority to impose sweeping import tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The ruling opened the door to mass refunds from US Customs and Border Protection across more than 1,000 companies. Nintendo was one of them. The consumer class action, filed by Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan on April 22, 2026, in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, argues that the same money cannot legitimately flow to Nintendo twice.

Nintendo Tariff Lawsuits Timeline and Updates

April 2, 2025 — “Liberation Day”: Trump Announces Sweeping Tariffs

President Trump held a press event in the White House Rose Garden on April 2, 2025, announcing what he called “Liberation Day” — a sweeping package of country-specific tariffs on imports into the United States, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The executive orders targeted goods from dozens of countries with varying rates. Goods from Vietnam, where Nintendo manufactures most of its consoles, initially faced a 46% tariff rate. Goods from China, where Nintendo makes many accessories, faced escalating rates that eventually peaked at 145% before partial relief reduced them to 34% in May 2025.

April 9, 2025 — Nintendo Delays Switch 2 Pre-Orders

Nintendo had been planning to open US pre-orders for the Nintendo Switch 2 on April 9, 2025, ahead of its June 5 launch. Hours before pre-orders were scheduled to open, Nintendo issued a statement: “Pre-orders for Nintendo Switch 2 in the U.S. will not start April 9, 2025 in order to assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions.” It was the first time in Nintendo’s modern history that trade policy had forced a pre-order delay. Pre-orders ultimately opened April 24 after Nintendo assessed the tariff landscape and devised a pricing strategy for the US market.

April–May 2025 — Nintendo Raises Switch 2 Accessory Prices

Nintendo announced price increases for Switch 2 accessories ahead of the June 5 launch, citing “changes in market conditions” without naming tariffs explicitly. The Joy-Con 2 controllers rose from $90 to $95 per pair. The Pro Controller rose from $79.99 to $84.99. The Charging Grip, Wheel Set, Camera, Dock Set, Carrying Case, and AC Adapter all saw increases of $5 to $10. The Switch 2 console itself held its $449.99 launch price, achieved in part through Nintendo’s decision to route US-bound consoles through Vietnam rather than China to take advantage of Vietnam’s ultimately lower tariff rate.

Nintendo CEO Shuntaro Furukawa confirmed the pricing strategy at an investor briefing in May 2025: “Our basic policy is that for any country or region, if tariffs are imposed, we recognize them as a part of the cost and incorporate them into the price.” That statement would later be quoted directly in the consumer class action lawsuit as evidence that Nintendo deliberately passed tariff costs to buyers.

August 2025 — Nintendo Raises Switch 1 Prices

Following a 20% tariff on goods from Vietnam that took effect later in the year, Nintendo raised prices across its legacy Switch 1 hardware line in August 2025. The Nintendo Switch OLED model rose from $349.99 to $399.99. The standard Nintendo Switch rose from $299.99 to $339.99. Several controllers and amiibo figures also saw price increases. Nintendo cited “market conditions” in its public statements. The August 2025 increases extended the tariff-impact window that the subsequent consumer class action would cover.

February 20, 2026 — Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs

The US Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 20, 2026, holding that President Trump did not have the authority to impose sweeping import tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The IEEPA had been invoked by Trump’s executive orders in a manner the Court found exceeded the statute’s scope. The ruling declared the tariffs unlawful and ordered US Customs and Border Protection to refund the duties it had collected. The CBP stated shortly after that it was “not able to comply” immediately with the refund order, but indicated a refund system would be ready within 45 days. Following the Supreme Court decision, Trump introduced a separate 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which faced its own legal challenges.

March 6, 2026 — Nintendo Sues the US Government for Tariff Refund

Nintendo of America filed a 14-page complaint in the US Court of International Trade in Washington, DC on March 6, 2026, Case No. 1:26-cv-1540, naming as defendants the US Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the US Trade Representative, US Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Commerce. Nintendo was represented by the law firm Venable LLP.

The complaint argued that Nintendo had been “substantially harmed by the unlawful execution and imposition of the unauthorized Executive Orders and corresponding payment of the IEEPA Duties.” Nintendo’s lawyers documented the timeline of 10 executive orders spanning from the February 1, 2025 initial tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China through mid-2025 measures targeting Brazil and India. The complaint cited CBP’s own prior litigation concession in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, in which the government had stated it would not contest the court’s authority to order refunds if IEEPA tariffs were found unlawful. Nintendo demanded a full refund of all duties paid, with interest, along with attorney fees and reprocessing of all affected import entries. Nintendo joined more than 1,000 companies filing similar suits, including FedEx, Costco, and Revlon.

April 22, 2026 — Consumers Sue Nintendo Over Tariff Refund Double-Recovery

Gregory Hoffert, a California resident, and Prashant Sharan, a Washington state resident, filed a proposed class action complaint against Nintendo of America on April 22, 2026, in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington — the same federal district where Nintendo of America is headquartered. Both plaintiffs stated they had purchased Nintendo products during the tariff period at prices elevated by the tariffs.

The complaint’s core legal theory is unjust enrichment. Nintendo, the plaintiffs argued, did not actually absorb the financial burden of the tariffs. It passed those costs to consumers through higher retail prices. Having made consumers whole on the tariff impact through price increases, Nintendo would be unjustly enriched if it then recovered the same money a second time from the federal government without passing it back to the buyers who had actually paid it. The complaint quoted Nintendo CEO Furukawa’s May 2025 investor briefing statement directly as evidence of the deliberate cost-pass-through strategy.

The proposed class covers all US persons who purchased Nintendo goods between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026. The complaint claims hundreds of thousands or millions of consumers could qualify. Plaintiffs allege unjust enrichment and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and demand a jury trial seeking restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages for the class.

The Legal Theory: Can Nintendo Recover Twice?

The consumer plaintiffs’ argument rests on a straightforward economic logic. Tariffs are technically levied on importers, not consumers. Nintendo, as the importer of its hardware, writes the check to US Customs and Border Protection. But Nintendo CEO Furukawa explicitly told investors that the company’s policy is to “incorporate [tariffs] into the price” — meaning the cost is passed downstream to retail buyers. If consumers absorbed the tariff cost through higher prices, Nintendo’s net out-of-pocket tariff burden was zero or close to zero. Recovering the tariff payment from the government without refunding the price increase to consumers would represent a windfall.

The unjust enrichment doctrine in civil law prevents a party from retaining a financial benefit it did not fairly earn at another party’s expense. The plaintiffs argue Nintendo did not earn the government refund because it did not bear the cost of the tariffs — consumers did. The Washington Consumer Protection Act provides a supplementary state law basis for the claim in Nintendo’s home jurisdiction.

Nintendo’s counter-position, when it ultimately files a response, will likely argue several things. Corporations routinely factor in cost increases when setting prices; that does not mean they have legally committed to passing cost decreases back downstream. Retail pricing decisions involve many variables beyond tariff costs. Nintendo is entitled to seek recovery of duties it paid, regardless of whether it passed those costs along. And the arbitration clause in Nintendo’s user agreement, which blocks class actions for console-related disputes, may not extend to retail purchase transactions not tied to a user account.

The Broader Context: Nintendo Is One of 1,000+ Defendants and Plaintiffs

Nintendo is not unique in facing this squeeze. The same pattern has played out across industries. FedEx and UPS both sued the US government for tariff refunds and were both subsequently hit with consumer class actions making the same double-recovery argument. EssilorLuxottica, the eyeglass importer, faces a parallel suit. The legal theory — that companies which passed tariff costs to consumers cannot also pocket the government refunds — is being tested simultaneously across the US consumer products and logistics sectors. None of these cases has reached a verdict as of May 2026.

The outcome of these cases will likely turn on whether courts accept the unjust enrichment argument as applied to retail pricing decisions. Notably, even FedEx, which publicly promised to pass its tariff refunds on to customers, still faced a class action. The legal question is not merely what a company promises but what law requires.

What Qualifies You for the Consumer Class Action

The proposed class covers any US person who purchased goods from Nintendo between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026, during the period when Nintendo raised prices to offset tariff costs. This includes purchases of Switch 2 accessories (Joy-Con 2 controllers, Pro Controller, Dock Set, Carrying Case, Charging Grip, Wheel Set, Camera, and AC Adapter) as well as original Switch hardware (OLED model and standard Switch) and controllers that saw August 2025 price increases.

No action is required at this stage. The class has not been certified. No claims process is open. If the court certifies the class and the case reaches a settlement or verdict, class members will be notified through standard class action procedures.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The Nintendo tariff litigation sits at the intersection of trade law, consumer protection, and corporate accountability, and it raises a question that will be answered by courts for years: when a company passes an illegal government tax to consumers and then recovers that tax from the government, who should get the money?

The conventional view in corporate law is that companies set prices based on cost structures, and changes in costs — up or down — are internal business decisions with no legal obligation to reverse for consumers. Nintendo is not a bank that promised you a specific rate. It is a retailer that priced products at what it determined the market would bear given its costs at the time. Under that view, recovering the tariff refund is a legitimate business benefit, no different from capturing an efficiency gain or a currency fluctuation.

The consumer view is simpler and more intuitive: someone paid more for a Nintendo product because the government collected an illegal tax. That person, not Nintendo, deserves the refund. Nintendo’s CEO explicitly told investors the tariff cost was passed to consumers. If the court accepts that statement as evidence of deliberate pass-through, the unjust enrichment argument becomes substantially stronger.

The case also highlights a structural reality of tariff policy that most consumers never consider. When the government imposes an import duty, the importer pays it to customs at the border. But the importer immediately adjusts pricing to recover that cost from the next buyer in the chain. The tariff ripples outward from the government collection point until it lands on the final retail customer. The customer never receives a customs receipt. They simply pay more for the product and have no direct claim against the government. The Nintendo consumer lawsuit is an attempt to close that circuit: to argue that because the consumer bore the economic burden, the consumer is the party entitled to the refund. Whether US courts will extend unjust enrichment doctrine to encompass that argument is the legal question this case will ultimately answer. For related coverage of Nintendo’s other ongoing legal battles, see our reporting on the Nintendo Palworld patent lawsuit and the Nintendo MIG Switch piracy case.