Nintendo Sued by Gamers Over US Tariff Refunds in Washington Class Action
Nintendo of America is facing a proposed class action in US federal court that accuses the gaming giant of trying to collect the same tariff money twice — once from customers through higher retail prices, and again from Washington through a pending refund claim. Plaintiffs Gregory Hoffert of California and Prashant Sharan of Washington state filed the proposed class action in the United States District Court Western District of Washington on April 21, 2026, under Case No. 2:26-cv-01360.
The “Double Recovery” Claim at the Heart of the Case
The complaint centres on a single accusation: that Nintendo stands to be paid twice for the same import duties. “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,” the suit states.
In their own words, the plaintiffs frame it as a straightforward windfall problem. “This class action arises from Nintendo’s retention of windfall profits generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government,” the plaintiffs say in their complaint, filed Tuesday in the Western District of Washington state. Beyond unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs accuse Nintendo, in part, of unjust enrichment, and also brings a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
How the Switch 2 Pro Controller and Dock Set Got More Expensive
The tariffs date back to February 2025, when the Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping duties on imports. According to the complaint, Nintendo passed at least part of that cost onto shoppers, raising the price of one of its controllers from $79.99 to $84.99 and its “Switch 2 Dock Set” from $109.99 to $119.99. The original Nintendo Switch wasn’t spared either — separate reporting confirmed that in August 2025, it raised the price of the original Switch.
Nintendo’s own executives had already tied pricing directly to tariff exposure. Speaking to investors in May 2025, Nintendo CEO Shuntaro Furukawa told investors “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.” The plaintiffs’ lawyers are using that comment as evidence the price rises were a direct, deliberate pass-through of the disputed duties.
Nintendo’s Own Fight for a Slice of the $166 Billion Refund Pool
The lawsuit only became possible after the US Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs in February 2026 as an unconstitutional use of presidential power, opening a government refund process. Nintendo moved quickly to claim its share: on March 6, 2026, Nintendo of America filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, targeting the tariffs levied against it under President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). The company is one of a huge field of claimants — as of early March, more than 1,000 companies have filed similar lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade, with a roster that includes Costco, FedEx, L’Oréal, Dyson, Revlon, Bausch & Lomb and CVS.
The sums involved are enormous. US Customs and Border Protection disclosed in a court filing that it collected approximately $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs specifically, spanning more than 330,000 importers and over 53 million entries. Asked directly by Game File whether any refund would be passed on to customers who paid the higher prices, Nintendo gave a carefully worded non-answer: “We can confirm that we filed a request. We have nothing else to share on this topic.”
A Skeptical Legal Take on the Gamers’ Odds
Not everyone is convinced the case will hold up. Don McGowan, the former chief legal officer of The Pokémon Company, told Game File he had doubts about the legal theory underpinning the suit. “I have exceptional difficulty seeing how this is a valid lawsuit,” McGowan said. “There’s nothing distinct between raising prices because of tariffs and raising prices because you just want to make more money.”
Nintendo isn’t the only company caught in this bind. FedEx, for instance, publicly promised to pass its own tariff refund on to customers — and got sued anyway, showing that even a voluntary commitment hasn’t shielded companies from litigation over the same underlying question. As of the filing, Nintendo did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit.
Who the Proposed Class Would Cover
The plaintiffs are seeking to represent every American who bought a price-hiked Nintendo product across a full year-long window. They proposed a class consisting of Nintendo customers from Feb. 1, 2025, through Feb. 24, 2026, the time in which Nintendo raised its prices, bringing the action “on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased goods from Nintendo during the tariff period and who paid inflated prices reflecting Nintendo’s pass-through of unlawful tariffs.” The case has not yet been certified as a class action, meaning it currently remains a two-plaintiff dispute pending further court proceedings.
For Switch and Switch 2 owners outside the US, including here in New Zealand and Australia, the case has no direct legal bearing — regional pricing for Nintendo hardware isn’t tied to US import tariffs. Still, the outcome could set an early precedent for how cour
Join the Conversation