Nintendo says it shouldn’t have to pay back players if it gets tariff refunds from the US government
It says players got “exactly what they bargained and paid for” when buying more expensive Switch consoles
Nintendo says it shouldn’t have to pay back players if it receives tariff refunds from the US government.
Last year Nintendo increased the price of the original Switch hardware in the US, with the Switch Lite becoming $30 more expensive, the Switch becoming $40 more expensive and the Switch OLED becoming $50 more expensive.
Nintendo’s price changes were widely attributed to US President Donald Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs on numerous countries and later pause some of them, except for a sizeable tariff on China, where tech products are often manufactured.
After the US Supreme Court found that Trump didn’t have the power to invoke the tariffs, in March 2026 Nintendo (as well as more than 1,000 other companies) sued the US Government for refunds what it considered illegal implementation of the tariffs.
As a result of this, two players – Gregory Hoffert from California and Prashant Sharan from Washington – decided to sue Nintendo, claiming that any money it recouped from tariff refunds should go to customers.
Now, as reported by Game File, Nintendo has asked the court to dismiss the class action suit, saying players “received exactly what they bargained and paid for” when they bought a Switch after the price increase.
Nintendo’s lawyers argue that the suggestion it was being unfair by not retroactively making the Switch cheaper again and refunding players the difference is “not how commercial transactions work”, because the customer agreed on the price when they bought the hardware.
“They were free to abstain from purchasing the product”
“Nintendo or one of its retailers set a price for each product, and consumers decided whether that price was worth paying,” Nintendo’s filing says. “Those who bought Nintendo’s products received exactly what they bargained and paid for – a console, game and/or accessory at a price to which both parties agreed.
“The money Plaintiffs paid represents the purchase price of the goods they wanted and received – Plaintiffs are not entitled to a rebate simply because of intervening legal developments related to tariffs.”
Nintendo’s filing also claims that a full refund of the difference wasn’t as simple as it seems because there were a number of factors that went into rising its prices, including “including costs of memory, labor, shipping, and tariffs”.
It claims that the Switch’s price wasn’t just increased by the amount of tariffs paid, but that Nintendo instead “imposed modest and selective price adjustments, and it chose to bear the costs of tariffs on some of its most popular products of 2025, including its flagship console, the Nintendo Switch 2“.
It also argues that the players who are suing Nintendo couldn’t have received tangible damages as a result of Switch’s price increase, because they weren’t forced into buying it.
“If a consumer did not want to pay the advertised price, they were free to abstain from purchasing the product or seek out competing products,” it says.
