Published
July 6, 2026
If you bought a Nintendo Switch, Switch 2, or Nintendo controllers during the tariff period, this lawsuit could affect you — though there is no settlement or claim form yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Nintendo has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Nintendo of America Inc. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the video game maker raised the prices of its Switch consoles and controllers to pass tariff costs along to customers — and now stands to collect government refunds of those same tariffs, while the shoppers who allegedly paid the higher prices have no comparable path to get their money back. Nintendo has not been found liable, and the allegations remain unproven.The case is captioned Hoffert v. Nintendo of America, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01360, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The named plaintiffs — a California resident and a Washington resident — say they bought Nintendo products at prices raised during the period tariffs were in effect. According to the complaint, Nintendo acts as the importer of record for the consoles and accessories it brings into the United States, paying the tariffs at the border and then setting the retail prices its customers pay. The complaint asserts claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, along with unjust enrichment and money had and received. Nintendo has not been found liable, and the claims remain unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · April 21, 2026
Proposed class action · Hoffert v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
Allegation
Switch and controller prices raised to pass on IEEPA tariffs, while Nintendo stands to collect government refunds of those same tariffs
IEEPA tariffs were struck down; the complaint alleges a potential double recovery
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement announced, no class certified, and no public consumer claim form at this stage
The Tariff "Double Recovery" Problem
The lawsuit fits a wave of consumer cases built on how U.S. tariff law works, alongside similar tariff-refund suits already filed against major retailers like Nike, IKEA, Amazon, Ralph Lauren, Puma, Columbia Sportswear, and Zara. When a tariff is imposed, the importer of record — here, Nintendo, which brings its consoles and accessories into the country — pays the duty at the border and typically raises retail prices to recover that cost, so the shopper effectively pays part of the tariff at checkout.When a tariff is later struck down, the refund mechanism gives importers of record — not retail consumers — the direct path to seek reimbursement from the government. The refund flows back to whoever paid the duty at the border, not to the shopper who paid the higher retail price. The complaint argues this lets Nintendo collect higher prices from consumers during the tariff period and then collect a refund afterward, recovering twice for the same economic burden. As the complaint frames it, unless the court steps in, 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. It asks the court to require Nintendo to return the tariff costs it allegedly passed on to customers, with interest, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Nintendo recovers.
The Switch Price Increases at the Center of the Case
The complaint points to a series of Nintendo price increases during the tariff period. According to reporting on the filing, Nintendo raised the standard Switch from $299.99 to $339.99 and the Switch OLED model from $349.99 to $399.99 by August 2025, following a 20% tariff on goods imported from Vietnam, where Nintendo shifted much of its console production. On the accessory side, the complaint cites increases such as the Joy-Con 2 controllers rising from roughly $90 to $95 a pair and the Pro Controller climbing from $79.99 to $84.99.The theory of the case is not that a price increase is by itself unlawful, but that Nintendo allegedly attributed these increases to tariff costs, collected the higher prices from consumers, and is now positioned to recoup those same tariffs from the government after they were invalidated — without passing the benefit back to the customers who paid. Whether Nintendo in fact set these prices to recover tariffs, and whether it is entitled to refunds, are questions the court has not decided.
The IEEPA Tariffs and the Supreme Court Ruling
Beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed tariffs on imports from numerous countries by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating those duties in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026). In March 2026, the Court of International Trade ordered that entries subject to IEEPA tariffs be liquidated or reliquidated "without regard to IEEPA duties," opening the door for importers of record to recover what they paid.That refund process is what the lawsuit targets. Importers can apply to recover the duties through U.S. Customs and Border Protection's CAPE tariff-refund portal — but consumers who shouldered the cost through higher prices have no direct government mechanism to get their money back. The complaint alleges Nintendo is positioned to collect a substantial refund attributable to costs its customers actually bore.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings claims under Washington's Consumer Protection Act along with unjust enrichment and money had and received, and asks the court to:• Certify the case as a class action and appoint the named plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.
• Require Nintendo to return to class members the tariff costs allegedly passed on through higher prices, with interest, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Nintendo recovers.
• Enjoin Nintendo from retaining tariff refunds attributable to costs borne by consumers.
• Award restitution, damages, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
All of these are requests for relief tied to unproven allegations; Nintendo has not been found to have done anything unlawful, and no money has been awarded.
Is There a Nintendo Tariff Settlement Yet?
No. This is important: Hoffert v. Nintendo of America, Inc. is a newly filed lawsuit, not a settlement.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout, and no deadline to act.
• Consumers do not need to do anything at this stage.
The filing of a complaint is the very beginning of a case, not the end. Nintendo has not been found liable simply because a lawsuit was filed, and the case remains pending unless and until a newer docket entry says otherwise. If the case is ever resolved through a settlement or a class is certified, a formal claims process with its own eligibility rules and deadlines would be announced separately.
Who Could Be Affected?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of U.S. consumers who bought Nintendo products at prices the company allegedly increased to pass along IEEPA tariff costs during the period the tariffs were in effect — reported as roughly February 2025 through February 2026.No class has been certified, and the final class definition, if any, could change. If you bought a Switch console, a Switch 2, or Nintendo controllers during that window, it may be worth keeping your receipts and order history handy in case a class is later certified and a claims process opens. There is nothing to file right now.
Beware of Nintendo Tariff Refund Scams
Important: whenever a class action is filed against a household-name brand, scammers send fake "tariff refund" texts, emails, and calls asking shoppers to click a link, confirm bank details, or pay a small "processing fee." There is no Nintendo tariff refund claim form right now, and Nintendo has not announced any consumer refund program. A legitimate claims process — if one ever exists — would be run by a court-appointed settlement administrator, would be free to participate in, and would never ask for your banking passwords, gift cards, or up-front fees.What Happens Next?
From here, the case will move through the normal early stages of federal litigation. Nintendo may file a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, the parties may exchange information in discovery, and the plaintiffs would, at some point, ask the court to certify a class. Any of these steps can take months, and the case could also be amended, narrowed, or resolved along the way.OpenClassActions.com will continue watching the docket for any major updates, including a motion to dismiss, settlement talks, class certification activity, or any future claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Nintendo lawsuit allege?
According to the complaint, Nintendo raised the prices of its Switch consoles and controllers to pass IEEPA tariff costs to customers and, as the importer of record, now stands to collect government refunds of those same tariffs after they were struck down, while its customers have no comparable refund process. The allegations are unproven.Is there anything to claim right now?
No. There is no settlement, no fund, and no claim form. Anyone asking you to file a claim or pay a fee for a Nintendo tariff refund today is running a scam.Who could be covered?
Generally, U.S. purchasers who bought Nintendo products at allegedly tariff-inflated prices during the period the IEEPA tariffs were in effect — reported as roughly February 2025 through February 2026. The exact class definition is not final because no class has been certified.Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Hoffert v. Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01360 (W.D. Wash., filed Apr. 21, 2026).• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026).
• Order, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 1:26-01259 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 4, 2026).
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Proposed Class Action
Case Title
Hoffert v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
Case Number
2:26-cv-01360
Court
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Date Filed
April 21, 2026
Claims
Washington Consumer Protection Act; unjust enrichment; money had and received
