Nintendo Sues US Government for Tariff Refunds as Corporate Legal Battle Reaches Critical Mass
Gaming giant joins wave of companies seeking billions in refunds after Supreme Court struck down Trump's emergency trade levies.
Nintendo of America filed suit against the US Treasury Department, Homeland Security, and Customs & Border Protection on Friday seeking refunds with interest on tariffs it paid under trade policies the Supreme Court ruled illegal last month.
The case, filed in the US Court of International Trade, claims Nintendo “suffered injury” from executive orders imposing duties on imports since February 2025 that Aftermath reports resulted in over $200 billion in total collections across all importers. Nintendo confirmed the filing but declined further comment.
The Refund Bottleneck
Nintendo’s Legal action comes despite a March 4 ruling by Judge Richard Eaton that companies are entitled to refunds for Tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to Kotaku, Customs and Border Protection told the court on March 6 it cannot currently comply with refund orders, citing technical limitations. CBP collected $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs from over 330,000 businesses, per Wikipedia, and expects a refund system operational within 45 days.
Nintendo’s lawyers argue the lawsuit is necessary because “despite the Supreme Court’s ruling and Defendants’ concession regarding the necessity of refunds, importers who paid the illegally collected IEEPA duties are not guaranteed the refund to which they are entitled absent this Court providing such relief.”
Nintendo’s Tariff Exposure
The tariffs directly impacted Nintendo’s business operations during a critical period. According to Nintendo Life, the company delayed Switch 2 pre-orders in the US and Canada while raising original Switch prices by $30 to $50 depending on model. Tariffs on Chinese goods reached 125% before settling at 34% in May 2025, while Japan faced a 24% reciprocal tariff and Vietnam—where Nintendo shifted production—was hit with 46%.
The timing proved particularly costly. Fortune reports that Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs were announced hours after Nintendo unveiled the Switch 2 in April 2025, upending years of Supply Chain planning. While Nintendo had begun shifting manufacturing from China to Vietnam in 2019 to avoid precisely this scenario, Nikkei Asia reported the majority of Switch consoles are still made in China.
The Broader Corporate Challenge
Nintendo is hardly alone. Bloomberg reports more than 1,000 corporate entities are now involved in the legal fight over tariff refunds. Major companies including Costco, Revlon, FedEx, and Kawasaki have filed similar suits. According to Nintendo Life, importers fear losing their legal right to recover refunds for entries that have already “liquidated” under customs procedures, creating urgency despite ongoing Supreme Court review.
The February Supreme Court decision found Trump exceeded his authority by invoking IEEPA—a 1977 statute meant for emergencies like freezing assets—to impose broad trade tariffs. In response, Trump pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose new 10% baseline tariffs, which 24 states are now challenging in a separate lawsuit filed Thursday, per NBC News.
Section 301 tariffs imposed on Chinese goods during Trump’s first term in 2018 remain legally intact and have survived court challenges. Those duties, ranging from 7.5% to 25% on $370 billion in imports, were imposed under different statutory authority following a USTR investigation into intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer. The current lawsuits target only tariffs imposed via IEEPA emergency declarations.
Precedent and Process Risks
The case carries implications beyond Nintendo’s balance sheet. If successful, it could establish a template for challenging executive trade actions and clarify the boundaries of presidential emergency powers. The US Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction over customs disputes, and its precedent in the V.O.S. Selections case—which the Supreme Court affirmed—forms the legal foundation for Nintendo’s claim.
But the refund process itself poses risks. Companies must file claims before their customs entries “liquidate”—typically one year after import. Tax Notes reports that even if tariffs are ruled unlawful, importers “may lack the legal right to recover refunds” for liquidated entries. This creates a race against bureaucratic timelines while CBP develops refund infrastructure.
- Nintendo joins 1,000+ companies seeking refunds on $166 billion in tariffs the Supreme Court ruled illegal
- Customs cannot currently process refunds despite court order; system expected operational in 45 days
- Gaming hardware faced 34-145% China tariffs and 46% Vietnam levies during critical Switch 2 launch period
- Companies risk losing refund rights as customs entries liquidate under normal one-year timelines
- Trump pivoted to Section 122 authority for new 10% tariffs after IEEPA powers struck down
What to Watch
The Court of International Trade must decide whether to consolidate Nintendo’s case with the AGS Company Automotive Solutions lead case, which already includes 75+ plaintiffs. CBP’s 45-day timeline to build refund infrastructure expires in mid-April—a critical test of whether the government can execute what may become the largest duty reimbursement in US history.
Meanwhile, Trump’s pivot to Section 122 tariffs sets up a new legal battle that legal scholars at Georgetown University suggest may carry stronger legal footing than IEEPA, as the trade court itself noted Section 122 was available for addressing trade deficits. If those tariffs survive judicial review while IEEPA refunds proceed, companies could face a scenario where they receive partial reimbursement only to pay new duties under different legal authority.
For Nintendo specifically, the financial recovery could offset Switch 2 launch disruptions that forced the company to forecast sales of just 15 million units—roughly in line with the original Switch’s cautious 2017 debut rather than the blockbuster follow-up investors anticipated. Whether any recovered funds translate to consumer price relief remains an open question the company has not addressed.