Nintendo says buyers are not owed tariff refund pass-throughs

Nintendo has asked a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action seeking refunds for customers who paid higher prices on Switch hardware and accessories tied to tariffs later ruled unlawful. The complaint does not disclose a total refund demand, but the case matters beyond gaming because similar tariff pass-through suits are now being filed against companies across multiple sectors.

In a motion to dismiss filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Nintendo argued that customers who bought its products are not legally entitled to money the company may recover from the U.S. government. Nintendo said the plaintiffs are asking the court to impose a new duty to revisit completed retail sales after the legal basis for the tariffs changed.

The case was filed in April by Gregory Hoffert of California and Prashant Sharan of Washington. They seek to represent U.S. residents who purchased Nintendo products between February 2025 and February 2026. The complaint alleges unjust enrichment and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, claiming Nintendo raised prices because of tariffs, did not disclose that it planned to seek tariff refunds, and may keep refunded duties after passing the costs to customers.

The price changes cited in the case include increases of $30 to $50 for the original Switch console and $5 to $10 for several Switch 2 accessories. Nintendo’s position is that the plaintiffs received the products they chose to buy at the prices shown at the time. The company also argued that retaining any government tariff refund would not create a customer claim to those funds.

Tariff refunds are becoming a class-action target

The Nintendo case is part of a broader wave of litigation following court rulings against tariffs imposed under President Trump. In February, the Supreme Court ruled that International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs had been imposed unlawfully, and a government refund process began in April. That refund portal is available to importers and authorized customs brokers, not consumers who may have indirectly paid higher prices.

Other gaming hardware companies are facing similar claims. A lawsuit against Sony over PlayStation purchases was filed in May in the Northern District of California, and a suit seeking refunds for Xbox buyers was filed against Microsoft on July 17. Sony had not filed a motion to dismiss in its case as of the reporting cited here.

Foley & Lardner lawyers Erik Swanholt and Kelsey Boehm wrote on July 9 that plaintiffs’ firms had filed more than 100 proposed consumer class actions against businesses seeking refunds tied to invalidated tariffs. Those cases span more than 30 federal districts and more than 20 states, according to the firm. The law firm said the common theory is that companies should not be able to pass tariff costs to customers and then keep government refunds for the same duties.

Holland & Knight lawyers have said the cases are still early and courts have not yet ruled on the central legal theories. Potential defenses include the argument that unjust enrichment is unavailable where an express contract governs the transaction, and that charges collected while the tariffs were still enforceable do not automatically become unlawful after a later court ruling.

Nintendo also seeks arbitration

Nintendo is also trying to move at least part of the dispute out of court. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration against Hoffert, saying it has evidence that he accepted Nintendo contractual terms at least twice. Nintendo said it may seek arbitration against Sharan as well if discovery shows his claims are covered by an arbitration agreement.

The immediate question for the court is whether customers can pursue claims based on tariff refunds paid to an importer after retail sales were completed. For hardware makers and other import-heavy companies, the answer could shape how much legal exposure follows any successful effort to recover duties from the government.

This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.