Nintendo states Switch buyers got what they paid for, calls on court to dismiss lawsuit. Nintendo called on a court to dismiss a lawsuit demanding that it pass tariff refunds on to customers, stating that people who acquired a Switch console or other products have no legal right to refunds that Nintendo is due to receive from the government. Nintendo stated in a motion to dismiss yesterday that plaintiffs are“Ask[ing] this Court to invent a legal duty out of whole cloth to retroactively re-price completed sales simply because the legal landscape has changed.”
Nintendo stated the plaintiffs“Have no legal entitlement to the tariff refunds Nintendo stands to receive.” The lawsuit was filed in April by two customers who seek to represent a class of all US residents who acquired Nintendo products from February 2025 to February 2026. California resident Gregory Hoffert and Washington resident Prashant Sharan filed the class action complaint in US District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging unjust enrichment and a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts.
“Nintendo engaged in unfair acts by: (i) raising prices due to tariffs; (ii) failing to disclose that it intended to seek tariff refunds; and (iii) retaining tariff refunds despite having passed the costs to its customers,”the lawsuit alleged. In their unjust-enrichment claim, plaintiffs stated Nintendo profits were“Unjustly obtained as a result of its price increases on goods subject to unlawful tariffs.” Nintendo raised prices for the original Switch console by $30 to $50 and added $5 to $10 to the prices of various Switch 2 accessories.
A similar lawsuit was filed in May against Sony by plaintiffs who acquired PlayStation consoles. Sony has not yet filed a motion to dismiss that case, which is in the Northern District of California, but is likely to clash it using similar legal reasoning as Nintendo’s. Another lawsuit seeking tariff refunds for Xbox buyers was filed against Microsoft on July 17.
Many companies raised prices in response to tariffs imposed by President Trump. In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump illegally imposed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs, and the lengthy refund process kicked off in April. Trump imposed another round of tariffs after the Supreme Court ruling, and those tariffs were judged to be illegal by the US Court of International Trade.
Ordinary residents of the US have paid the price of Trump’s trade war. “As it stands, Defendant has retained profits generated from its sales of products subject to tariff-related price increases and should not be permitted to retain those ill-gotten profits when it is seeking a refund of the duties it paid,”the lawsuit against Nintendo stated. It’s easy to see why consumers are furious about having paid tariff-inflated prices.
The government isn’t issuing refunds to any resident who indirectly paid for Trump’s tariffs. The government refund portal set up after the Supreme Court ruling is for importers and authorized customs brokers. Nintendo is one of many companies that sued the Trump administration in an attempt to make sure the government doesn’t worm its way out of issuing refunds.
The class action against Nintendo pointed to this lawsuit as evidence that“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 those same unlawful tariff payments from the federal government.” Lawsuits seeking refunds from companies aren’t just being filed against gaming console makers. Since the Supreme Court ruling,“Plaintiffs’ firms have filed more than 100 putative consumer class actions against businesses nationwide that have sought refunds of tariffs paid as a result of these now invalidated charges,”stated a July 9 article by Foley & Lardner lawyers.
These cases have been filed in more than 30 federal districts in over 20 states, they wrote. The legal theory behind the lawsuits is not specific to any industry. “Plaintiffs have filed class actions against companies across varying industries and points in the supply chain from food manufacturers to logistics providers.
The specific allegations in each case differ, but the primary legal theory is the same: companies cannot pass tariff costs to consumers and retain government refunds for the same tariffs,”Foley & Lardner lawyers Erik Swanholt and Kelsey Boehm wrote. Holland & Knight lawyers wrote in a legal alert that“Any business that both passed tariff costs through to customers and is pursuing government refunds could become a litigation target.” With lawsuits in the early stages, no court has ruled on the core legal theories, Holland & Knight lawyers wrote.
Businesses have several potential defenses, such as arguing that there can be no unjust enrichment when there is a contract between the parties. “In many jurisdictions, unjust enrichment is unavailable where an express contract governs the parties’ relationship,”Holland & Knight partners Ashley Akers and Austin Rainwater wrote. Businesses can also argue“That the challenged charges were imposed while the IEEPA tariffs remained legally effective and enforceable,”the Holland & Knight alert stated.
“According to this view, the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision invalidating the tariffs does not necessarily render charges collected before that decision unlawful or create a retroactive obligation to refund amounts previously paid.” Although the lawsuit against Nintendo did not allege breach of contract, the Holland & Knight alert stated some of the tariff cases make this claim. “This is the principal claim in many shipping and logistics cases.
Plaintiffs allege that tariff-related surcharges were not authorized under applicable shipping agreements, terms of service or tariff schedules,”the law firm stated. Companies are likely to ask courts to enforce mandatory arbitration provisions contained in their terms and conditions, and Nintendo has already done so. Nintendo filed a motion to compel arbitration with Hoffert because of evidence that he“Affirmatively accepted contractual agreements with Nintendo at least twice.”
Nintendo stated in its motion to dismiss that it“Expressly reserves the right to move to compel Mr. Sharan’s claims to arbitration if discovery reveals his claims are arbitrable.”