Nintendo customers have no legal right to tariff refunds, company tells judge
Nintendo customers have no legal right to tariff refunds, company tells judge
任天堂告知法官：消费者无权要求退还关税
Nintendo urged a court to dismiss a lawsuit demanding that it pass tariff refunds on to customers, saying that people who bought a Switch console or other products have no legal right to refunds that Nintendo is due to receive from the government. 任天堂敦促法院驳回一起要求其将关税退款转交给消费者的诉讼。任天堂表示，购买了 Switch 主机或其他产品的消费者，对于任天堂从政府处获得的关税退款并不享有法律权利。
Nintendo said in a motion to dismiss yesterday that plaintiffs are “ask[ing] this Court to invent a legal duty out of whole cloth to retroactively re-price completed sales simply because the legal landscape has changed.” Nintendo said the plaintiffs “have no legal entitlement to the tariff refunds Nintendo stands to receive.” 任天堂在昨日提交的驳回动议中称，原告是在“要求法院凭空捏造一项法律义务，仅仅因为法律环境发生了变化，就对已完成的销售进行追溯性的重新定价”。任天堂表示，原告“对于任天堂即将获得的关税退款没有任何法律上的权利”。
The lawsuit was filed in April by two customers who seek to represent a class of all US residents who bought Nintendo products from February 2025 to February 2026. California resident Gregory Hoffert and Washington resident Prashant Sharan filed the class action complaint in US District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging unjust enrichment and a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts. 该诉讼由两名消费者于四月提起，他们寻求代表所有在 2025 年 2 月至 2026 年 2 月期间购买任天堂产品的美国居民。加州居民 Gregory Hoffert 和华盛顿州居民 Prashant Sharan 在美国华盛顿西区联邦地区法院提起了集体诉讼，指控任天堂不当得利，并违反了《华盛顿州消费者保护法》中关于禁止不公平或欺骗性行为的规定。
“Nintendo engaged in unfair acts by: (i) raising prices due to tariffs; (ii) failing to disclose that it intended to seek tariff refunds; and (iii) retaining tariff refunds despite having passed the costs to its customers,” the lawsuit alleged. In their unjust-enrichment claim, plaintiffs said Nintendo profits were “unjustly obtained as a result of its price increases on goods subject to unlawful tariffs.” 诉讼称：“任天堂实施了不公平行为，包括：(i) 因关税而提高价格；(ii) 未披露其打算寻求关税退款的意图；以及 (iii) 在已将成本转嫁给客户的情况下，仍保留关税退款。”在不当得利的指控中，原告称任天堂的利润是“因其对受非法关税影响的商品涨价而获得的不正当收益”。
Nintendo raised prices for the original Switch console by $30 to $50 and added $5 to $10 to the prices of various Switch 2 accessories. Nintendo told the court that “the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply when a party voluntarily pays a purchase price and receives a product in return.” 任天堂将原版 Switch 主机的价格提高了 30 至 50 美元，并将各种 Switch 2 配件的价格提高了 5 至 10 美元。任天堂向法院表示：“当一方自愿支付购买价格并获得相应产品时，不当得利原则并不适用。”
Nintendo said plaintiffs “received exactly what they paid for: Nintendo products that Plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily purchased at the advertised price. Nor is there anything ‘unjust’ about Nintendo retaining money that it may receive from the government as tariff refunds. The fact that Nintendo stands to receive tariff refunds does not give Plaintiffs any legal entitlement to those funds.” 任天堂表示，原告“得到了他们所支付的全部价值：即原告在知情且自愿的情况下，以标价购买的任天堂产品。任天堂保留其可能从政府获得的关税退款，这并不存在任何‘不公正’之处。任天堂即将获得关税退款这一事实，并不赋予原告对这些资金的任何法律权利。”
Consumers paid price of Trump tariffs
消费者承担了特朗普关税的代价
A similar lawsuit was filed in May against Sony by plaintiffs who bought PlayStation consoles. Sony has not yet filed a motion to dismiss that case, which is in the Northern District of California, but is likely to fight it using similar legal reasoning as Nintendo’s. Another lawsuit seeking tariff refunds for Xbox buyers was filed against Microsoft on July 17. 五月份，购买了 PlayStation 主机的原告对索尼提起了类似的诉讼。该案目前在加州北区联邦地区法院审理，索尼尚未提交驳回动议，但很可能会采用与任天堂类似的法律逻辑进行抗辩。另一起针对微软、旨在为 Xbox 买家寻求关税退款的诉讼已于 7 月 17 日提起。
Many companies raised prices in response to tariffs imposed by President Trump. In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump illegally imposed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs, and the lengthy refund process began in April. Trump imposed another round of tariffs after the Supreme Court ruling, and those tariffs were judged to be illegal by the US Court of International Trade. 许多公司为了应对特朗普总统征收的关税而提高了价格。二月份，最高法院裁定特朗普非法征收了《国际紧急经济权力法》(IEEPA) 关税，漫长的退款程序于四月开始。在最高法院裁决后，特朗普又征收了新一轮关税，而这些关税被美国国际贸易法院裁定为非法。
Ordinary residents of the US have paid the price of Trump’s trade war. “As it stands, Defendant has retained profits generated from its sales of products subject to tariff-related price increases and should not be permitted to retain those ill-gotten profits when it is seeking a refund of the duties it paid,” the lawsuit against Nintendo said. 普通的美国居民承担了特朗普贸易战的代价。针对任天堂的诉讼称：“目前，被告保留了因关税相关涨价而产生的销售利润，在它寻求退还已缴关税的同时，不应被允许保留这些不义之财。”
It’s easy to see why consumers are angry about having paid tariff-inflated prices. The government isn’t issuing refunds to any resident who indirectly paid for Trump’s tariffs. The government refund portal set up after the Supreme Court ruling is for importers and authorized customs brokers. 不难理解为什么消费者对支付了因关税而上涨的价格感到愤怒。政府并没有向任何间接支付了特朗普关税的居民发放退款。最高法院裁决后设立的政府退款门户网站仅面向进口商和授权报关行。
Over 100 tariff lawsuits against businesses
针对企业的关税诉讼超过 100 起
Nintendo is one of many companies that sued the Trump administration in an attempt to make sure the government doesn’t worm its way out of issuing refunds. The class action against Nintendo pointed to this lawsuit as evidence that “Nintendo stands to receive a windfall: it has already recouped tariff costs from consumers through higher prices, and it now stands in line to recover those same unlawful tariff payments from the federal government.” 任天堂是众多起诉特朗普政府的公司之一，旨在确保政府不会逃避退款责任。针对任天堂的集体诉讼将此案作为证据，指出“任天堂即将获得一笔横财：它已经通过提高价格从消费者那里收回了关税成本，现在又排队等待从联邦政府那里收回同样的非法关税款项。”
Lawsuits seeking refunds from companies aren’t just being filed against gaming console makers. Since the Supreme Court ruling, “plaintiffs’ firms have filed more than 100 putative consumer class actions against businesses nationwide that have sought refunds of tariffs paid as a result of these now invalidated charges,” said a July 9 article by Foley & Lardner lawyers. These cases have been filed in more than 30 federal districts in over 20 states, they wrote. 寻求企业退款的诉讼不仅针对游戏主机制造商。Foley & Lardner 律师事务所在 7 月 9 日的一篇文章中表示，自最高法院裁决以来，“原告律师事务所已在全国范围内对那些寻求退还因现已失效的收费而缴纳的关税的企业，提起了 100 多起消费者集体诉讼。”他们写道，这些案件已在 20 多个州的 30 多个联邦地区法院提起。
The legal theory behind the lawsuits is not specific to any industry. “Plaintiffs have filed class actions against companies across varying industries and points in the supply chain from food manufacturers to logistics providers. The specific allegations in each case differ, but the primary legal theory is the same: companies cannot pass tariff costs to consumers and retain government refunds for the same tariffs,” Foley & Lardner lawyers Erik Swanholt and Kelsey Boehm wrote. 这些诉讼背后的法律理论并不局限于任何特定行业。Foley & Lardner 律师 Erik Swanholt 和 Kelsey Boehm 写道：“原告已对从食品制造商到物流供应商等不同行业和供应链环节的公司提起了集体诉讼。每个案件的具体指控各不相同，但主要的法律理论是一致的：公司不能将关税成本转嫁给消费者，同时又保留政府针对同一关税的退款。”
Holland & Knight lawyers wrote in a legal alert that “any business that both passed tariff costs through to customers and is pursuing government refunds could become a litigation target.” Holland & Knight 律师在一份法律警示中写道：“任何既将关税成本转嫁给客户，又在寻求政府退款的企业，都可能成为诉讼目标。”
Nintendo tries to compel arbitration
任天堂试图强制仲裁
With lawsuits in the early stages, no court has ruled on the core legal theories, Holland & Knight lawyers wrote. Businesses have several potential defenses, such as arguing that there can be no unjust enrichment when there is a contract between the parties. “In many jurisdictions, unjust enrichment is unavailable where an express contract governs the parties’ relationship,” Holland & Knight partners Ashley Akers and Austin Rainwater wrote. Businesses can also argue “that the challenged charges were imposed while the IEEPA tariffs remained legally effective and enforceable,” the Holland & Knight… Holland & Knight 律师写道，由于诉讼尚处于早期阶段，还没有法院对核心法律理论作出裁决。企业有几种潜在的辩护理由，例如辩称当双方之间存在合同时，就不存在不当得利。Holland & Knight 合伙人 Ashley Akers 和 Austin Rainwater 写道：“在许多司法管辖区，如果双方关系受明确合同约束，则不适用不当得利原则。”企业还可以辩称“受质疑的收费是在 IEEPA 关税仍然合法有效且可执行的情况下征收的”，Holland & Knight……