Nintendo faces class action over claims it profited twice from unlawful tariffs

By Top Class Actions | May 7, 2026

Category: Electronics

(Photo Credit: Piotr Swat/Shutterstock)

Nintendo class action lawsuit overview:

Who: Plaintiffs Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan filed a class action lawsuit against Nintendo of America Inc.
Why: Hoffert and Sharan claim Nintendo unlawfully retained profits generated by tariffs that were later deemed unlawful.
Where: The Nintendo class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Nintendo unlawfully retained windfall profits generated by tariffs that were later deemed unlawful.

Plaintiffs Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan claim Nintendo retained the profits by increasing its prices to offset the cost of the tariffs, which were imposed by the federal government in February 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Hoffert and Sharan argue Nintendo increased its prices in response to the tariffs — which were imposed on imports from numerous countries — and, as a result, consumers paid higher prices for the company’s products.

The plaintiffs claim the Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that the IEEPA tariffs were unlawful, and importers such as Nintendo became entitled to refunds of the duties they previously paid to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Hoffert and Sharan argue Nintendo collected the tariff costs from consumers through elevated pricing while seeking refunds of the same tariff payments from the federal government.

“Unless restrained by [the 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 Nintendo class action lawsuit says.

Nintendo class action claims company should not be allowed to keep tariff refunds

Hoffert and Sharan argue Nintendo has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff-related overcharges to the consumers who actually paid them.

The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased goods from Nintendo during the period February 2025 through February 2026 in which the company raised prices.

They claim Nintendo is guilty of unjust enrichment and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Hoffert and Sharan demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of restitution and damages for themselves and all class members.

Meanwhile, United Parcel Service Inc. is facing a similar class action lawsuit alleging it collected tariff charges later deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Have you purchased a Nintendo product? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by M. Anderson Berry, Timothy Emery, Brook Garberding, Gregory Haroutunian and Brandon P. Jack of Emery Reddy P.C.; Jason T. Dennett of Milberg PLLC; Gary M. Klinger of Milberg PLLC; Terence R. Coates and Dylan J. Gould of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC; and Zachary Arbitman and Nicole A. Maruzzi of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP.

The Nintendo class action lawsuit is Hoffert, et al. v. Nintendo of America Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01360, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.