Nintendo sues U.S. government, demands $200 billion tariff refund with interest

Nintendo’s complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade on March 6, alleges that the company paid more than $200 billion in duties after President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive orders invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs on a broad swath of imports. The 14‑page filing, obtained by Aftermath, claims the tariffs were “unlawfully imposed” and seeks a full refund “with interest,” plus attorney fees and a re‑processing of its import entries (Tom’s Hardware). Nintendo of America’s legal team, Venable LLP, lists the Treasury, Homeland Security, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Customs and Border Protection, and the Commerce Department as defendants, arguing that the government’s own prior concession in the V.O.S. Selections v. Trump case binds it to issue refunds if the tariffs are later ruled illegal (Tom’s Hardware).

The lawsuit rides on a February 20 Supreme Court decision that struck down the IEEPA‑based tariffs, holding that the act does not grant the president authority to impose such duties. The Court also ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to return the collected tariffs, but CBP immediately replied that it “was not able to comply” with the order (Tom’s Hardware). Nintendo is therefore joining a wave of more than 1,000 plaintiffs—including FedEx, Costco and Revlon—who have filed similar claims seeking restitution for the same set of duties (Tom’s Hardware). The complaint enumerates ten executive orders, beginning with the February 1, 2025 tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China and extending to a 40 % levy on Brazilian goods and a 25 % duty on Indian imports tied to Russian oil purchases later that year (Tom’s Hardware).

Nintendo’s grievance centers on the impact of the tariffs on its Switch 2 accessory supply chain. The company contends that the duties forced price hikes on peripherals and delayed pre‑order fulfillment throughout 2025, eroding consumer confidence and harming its market launch. While the filing does not disclose exact loss figures, the reference to “price hikes and preorder delays” mirrors the concerns first reported by Tom’s Hardware, which linked the tariffs directly to the accessory market disruption (Tom’s Hardware). By invoking the government’s own language from the V.O.S. Selections litigation—where officials promised “refunds to plaintiffs, including any post‑judgment interest that accrues”—Nintendo argues that the Treasury is contractually obligated to honor those terms (Tom’s Hardware).

Legal analysts note that the $200 billion figure cited by Nintendo reflects the aggregate duties collected from all affected imports since February 2025, not a company‑specific loss. The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, creates a precedent that could force the Treasury to unwind the entire tariff regime, potentially unlocking massive refunds for a broad coalition of importers. Nintendo’s filing therefore serves both as a bid for compensation and as a strategic lever to pressure the administration into a broader settlement, as suggested by the sheer scale of the claim and the inclusion of multiple federal agencies as defendants (Tom’s Hardware).

If the court grants Nintendo’s request, the refund could reshape the company’s fiscal outlook for the current fiscal year, offsetting the cost pressures that have already prompted price adjustments on its flagship hardware. Moreover, a successful claim would signal to other tech firms that the judiciary is willing to enforce the Supreme Court’s interpretation of IEEPA, potentially accelerating the resolution of the thousands of parallel lawsuits pending against the Treasury. For now, Nintendo has offered no further comment beyond confirming the filing with Aftermath, underscoring the litigious climate that has enveloped U.S. trade policy since the 2025 tariff wave began (Tom’s Hardware).