Rewind the clock back to early April 2025. Gamers in the United States are eager to get their hands on a Switch 2 and are waiting on tenterhooks to lodge their pre-orders. But, as he tends to do, Donald Trump threw a spanner in the works. On 2nd April, he declared a national emergency over the US trade deficit to authorise sweeping tariffs on foreign imports.
Pre-orders for the new console were set to go live in the US on 9th April, but in the midst of the tariff tumult, Nintendo announced it would be delayed due to “evolving market conditions”. While affected gamers were eventually able to pre-order their consoles on 24th April, the delay was emblematic of the massive curveball businesses were dealing with.
Fast-forward to 20 February 2026. The US Supreme Court struck down those tariffs, ruling they were unlawfully imposed. Unsurprisingly, more than 1,000 companies subjected to those import duties have come out swinging by suing the federal government. In Nintendo’s case, it is seeking refunds for the tariffs it paid, plus interest and attorney fees.
While Nintendo is well-positioned to reclaim those funds, it shouldn’t break out the champagne just yet. Trade experts told Nintendo Life that the Trump administration is already reconstructing its tariff regime under a different legal authority, meaning Nintendo could still be on the hook to pay fresh import duties. Gamers, in that scenario, can expect no let-up in higher prices.
Counting the cost
Tariffs are basically a tax applied to certain imported goods. Trump’s 2nd April tariffs were primarily country-specific. Vietnam negotiated its rate down from 46% to 20%, whilst China’s rates spiralled to a peak of 145% before partial relief. Nintendo manufactures its consoles and accessories primarily in Vietnam and China, which put it squarely in the crossfire.
Nintendo argues in its lawsuit that the tariffs amount to a legal injury that won’t heal unless the government pays up.
When companies face tariffs, the conventional wisdom is that higher costs are passed on to consumers. In Nintendo’s case, it had managed to keep the Switch 2’s $449.99 launch price intact by strategically routing US-bound consoles through Vietnam, leveraging its lower tariff rate. But prices were ultimately raised on accessories and older Switch models.
Joy-Con 2 controllers were priced up from $90 to $95 per pair ahead of the Switch 2’s 5 June launch, and the Pro Controller rose from $79.99 to $84.99. By August, Nintendo also raised prices across the original Switch family in the US, with the OLED model climbing from $349.99 to $399.99 and the standard Switch from $299.99 to $339.99.
Nintendo argues in its lawsuit that the tariffs amount to a legal injury that won’t heal unless the government pays up. The exact sum it’s chasing hasn’t been made public, but Nintendo is far from alone in the queue. On 4th March, a US Court of International Trade (CIT) judge ruled that all 330,000-plus importers who paid the unlawful import duties are entitled to refunds.
That sets the stage for what could be one of the largest government repayment exercises in US history. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must now return at least $166 billion to importers, a figure swelling by an estimated $650 million in interest every month. But the agency has conceded that its IT systems are not equipped to process repayments at that scale.
Where Nintendo stands
CBP is in the process of building out a new electronic process through which it can process repayments and could start providing refunds by late April. Given the Supreme Court ruling and CIT’s subsequent refund order, the picture is encouraging for Nintendo, but not without caveats. Procedural or administrative obstacles could stand between importers and their money.
“It remains to be seen whether the White House will challenge payment of refunds through litigation or by highly scrutinising refund claims,” said Jonathan Todd, a partner at Benesch Law and an expert on international trade and supply chain law. Nintendo’s lawsuit against the federal government serves to hedge against precisely this scenario.
The specific risk Nintendo is guarding against is called ‘liquidation’, the process by which CBP formally finalises the duty owed on each imported shipment and stamps it as settled. Once an entry is liquidated, importers have 180 days to file a protest and dispute the amount. Miss that window, and the government can argue the entry is closed for good.
That would imply no refund is owed, regardless of whether the tariff that generated it was later ruled unlawful. For the record, the tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court were invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the US president sweeping economic authority during a declared national emergency.
Todd of Benesch Law added that CBP, according to updates it has provided CIT, is on track to meet a 45-day deadline to begin issuing tariff refunds. “If the timeline were to slip, then this does not in and of itself strengthen or weaken the position of importers in the eyes of the Court. Also, the timeline has no impact on the lawfulness of IEEPA tariffs,” he told us.
The Tariff-man cometh
So, given the court rulings on both tariffs and refunds, Nintendo has a solid case for getting its money back. The trouble is that the Trump administration has been busy ensuring there’s a fresh bill waiting on the other side. It is aiming to push through a new wave of tariffs by late July that will have a firmer footing in court and be harder for companies to challenge.
After the Supreme Court ruling in February, Trump invoked Section 122 of US trade law — designed to address ‘balance-of-payment emergencies’ — to keep a 10% global tariff in place. The catch is that those tariffs expire after 150 days, or by 24th July, and are slated to be replaced by Section 301 tariffs targeting ‘unfair’ overproduction and labour practices.
any refund Nintendo secures through litigation risks being cancelled out almost immediately by incoming Section 301 duties
“The 301 tariffs just announced are the next step in his plan to be able to levy tariffs on as many countries as possible in the quickest way,” said Steven Okun, founder and CEO of Singapore-based business consultancy APAC Advisors, pointing to sprawling probes against dozens of countries opened by the US Trade Representative (USTR) on 11th and 12th March.
The administration is essentially pivoting away from using ‘national emergency’ justifications like IEEPA and is instead investigating the industrial and labour policies of its trading partners, the results of which have a much stronger historical and legal track record of holding up in US courts. Unlike the IEEPA, Section 301 specifically mentions ‘duties’ and ‘tariffs’ as a remedy.
“The use of 301 is primarily a means to reconstruct the reciprocal tariff regime under a different authority that is far less likely to face a successful legal challenge,” said Stephen Olson, a visiting senior fellow with the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore.
“Nintendo, or any other US importer for that matter, should anticipate only a temporary reprieve from the reciprocal tariffs enacted under IEEPA.”
Keeping the legal team busy
Companies facing the prospect of fresh tariffs do have one formal avenue to make their case before duties are imposed. The USTR’s Section 301 process includes a public comment period and a hearing at which businesses, industry groups, and other interested parties can argue that proposed tariffs would harm American consumers and the broader economy.
Nintendo, whose aforementioned manufacturing operations in Vietnam and China would put it squarely in the crossfire of any new Section 301 duties, is well-placed to make that case. We reached out to Nintendo to ask whether it intends to participate in the process but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
The question on most gamers’ minds will be whether the Switch 2’s $449.99 price tag can survive a fresh round of tariffs. During Nintendo’s latest earnings briefing in February, president Shuntaro Furukawa notably stopped short of ruling out a future price hike, and Bloomberg has reported that Nintendo is “contemplating” raising the price of the console in 2026.
The Section 301 process will play out over the coming months, and the rate ultimately applied to Vietnamese and Chinese goods will determine Nintendo’s next move. In a nutshell, any refund Nintendo secures through litigation risks being cancelled out almost immediately by incoming Section 301 duties, turning its legal victory into a financial non-event.
“I am confident that if USTR wants the Section 301 tariffs in place by July, they will be,” Okun told us. “Companies should prepare to pay for tariffs for the rest of the Trump administration, and potentially beyond.”
Suffice to say, market conditions are set to remain challenging for the video games industry as a whole.
