Nintendo has asked a federal court in Washington to dismiss a proposed class action that tries to make the company hand tariff refunds to customers who bought Switch hardware and other products. The fight is about who gets the money when import duties that helped push up retail prices are later ruled unlawful: the importer that paid the government, or the customer who paid the higher shelf price.
In a motion filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, Nintendo said customers who bought its products at advertised prices have no legal claim to any tariff refunds the company may receive from the federal government. The company argued that the plaintiffs are asking the court to create a new duty to reopen completed sales after the law changed.
The case was filed in April by Gregory Hoffert of California and Prashant Sharan of Washington. They seek to represent US residents who bought Nintendo products between February 2025 and February 2026. Their complaint accuses Nintendo of unjust enrichment and of violating the Washington Consumer Protection Act, which bars unfair or deceptive conduct.
The plaintiffs allege that Nintendo raised prices because of tariffs, did not tell customers it planned to pursue refunds, and now wants to keep both the higher consumer payments and the government refund. The complaint points to Nintendo’s own tariff litigation against the Trump administration as evidence that the company may recover duties it had already passed along through price increases.
Nintendo’s response is the plain corporate version of “a sale is a sale.” The company told the court that unjust enrichment does not apply when a customer voluntarily pays a stated price and receives the product purchased. Nintendo said Hoffert and Sharan got the Nintendo products they chose to buy, at the prices disclosed at the time.
The price changes at issue include increases of $30 to $50 for the original Switch console and $5 to $10 for several Switch 2 accessories, according to the complaint and related reporting cited in the court record.
The tariff refund fight is bigger than Nintendo
The litigation follows a Supreme Court ruling in February that President Trump unlawfully imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. A federal refund process for importers and authorized customs brokers began in April. Consumers who indirectly paid higher prices are not the ones using that portal.
Trump imposed another set of tariffs after the Supreme Court decision, and the US Court of International Trade later ruled those tariffs unlawful, according to the court materials and legal commentary surrounding the cases.
Nintendo is not the only console maker facing this argument. A similar proposed class action was filed in May against Sony over PlayStation purchases, and another was filed July 17 against Microsoft on behalf of Xbox buyers. Sony has not yet filed a motion to dismiss in its case.
Lawyers at Foley & Lardner wrote on July 9 that plaintiffs’ firms have filed more than 100 proposed consumer class actions against businesses seeking refunds for invalidated tariffs. Those cases span more than 30 federal districts in over 20 states, according to the firm. The same basic theory appears across industries: companies should not be able to pass tariff costs to customers and then keep government refunds for those same tariffs.
Holland & Knight lawyers said in a legal alert that courts have not yet ruled on the central theory in these cases. They identified several defenses companies may raise, including that unjust enrichment may be unavailable where a contract governs the sale and that charges collected while tariffs were still legally enforceable may not create a retroactive refund duty.
Nintendo is also trying to move at least part of the case out of court. In a separate motion, the company asked the judge to compel arbitration for Hoffert, saying he accepted Nintendo contractual agreements at least twice. Nintendo said it may seek arbitration for Sharan as well if discovery shows his claims are covered.
This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.
