On March 6, 2026, Nintendo of America filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The defendant is the federal government itself: the Treasury Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Commerce, along with their respective heads.

Nintendo's argument is simple. The tariffs President Trump imposed in 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, and the duties already paid should be refunded in full, with interest. The complaint describes the case as concerning the government's initiation and administration of unlawful trade measures.

Nintendo confirmed the filing and said only that it could confirm it had filed a request.

The Supreme Court Ruling: The Legal Basis Collapses

The foundation of the suit is the Supreme Court decision handed down on February 20, 2026. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court ruled 6 to 3 that tariffs imposed under IEEPA were invalid.

Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the statute's authorization to regulate importation does not encompass the taxing power the Constitution assigns to Congress. Reading the law that broadly, the Court said, would amount to a transformative expansion of presidential authority. In short: the president never had the power to impose these tariffs.

IEEPA, enacted in 1977, grants the president broad economic powers during a national emergency. The Trump administration used it from February 2025 to impose sweeping duties. The reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2, 2025, hit Japan at 24 percent, Vietnam, where Nintendo manufactures heavily, at 46 percent, and China at rates reaching as high as 145 percent.

After the ruling, Trump signed an executive order terminating the IEEPA tariffs, effective February 24, 2026. That order said nothing about refunding what had already been collected. The Supreme Court likewise did not address how the government should return an estimated $130 billion to $200 billion, leaving the question to the lower courts.

That vacuum is what is driving companies into court.

More Than a Thousand Lawsuits: The Corporate Counterattack

Nintendo is not acting alone. Since the ruling, more than a thousand companies have filed similar suits, including Costco, FedEx, Goodyear, GoPro, Toyota, and Revlon. Tech names on the list include Lenovo, Dyson, and Whoop. Attorneys general and governors in two dozen states have also sued for refunds.

The decisive development came on March 4, 2026, when Judge Richard Eaton of the CIT ruled in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States that all importers of record who paid IEEPA duties are entitled to benefit from the Supreme Court's decision, and that he would hear cases pertaining to refunds. The ruling applies broadly, not just to companies that sued.

The question is whether the money actually moves. On March 6, CBP told the court it cannot currently process the payments, citing insufficient staff and inadequate technology. Its filings disclose that it collected roughly $166 billion in IEEPA duties from more than 330,000 importers, and that a new refund processing system could be operational in about 45 days. Nintendo's complaint puts the total collected above $200 billion.

In other words, winning does not automatically return the money. Nintendo went to court independently because, without a binding order, repayment is not guaranteed.

How Tariffs Hit Switch 2: Delayed Pre-Orders and Price Hikes

Nintendo took a direct hit.

The timing was brutal. The reciprocal tariffs were announced on April 2, 2025, right as Nintendo formally revealed the Nintendo Switch 2. U.S. pre-orders were scheduled for April 9, and Nintendo delayed them to assess the potential impact of the tariffs and the shifting market environment, effectively admitting the tariffs were the cause. Pre-orders resumed on April 24.

The console launched in June 2025 at $449.99 in the US, the originally announced price. The Japanese-language domestic model sells for 49,980 yen. But the tariffs surfaced elsewhere: Nintendo raised prices on accessories such as controllers, and on original Nintendo Switch family products.

Nintendo builds its hardware primarily in Vietnam and China. At 46 percent and up to 145 percent, the duties it absorbed were substantial. If the suit succeeds and the money comes back with interest, the effect on earnings is not trivial.

Raising prices, though, created a different exposure. The law firm Arnold & Porter has predicted a wave of consumer class actions against companies that raised prices in response to the now-invalidated tariffs, and says several are already in motion. The firm calls them untested and early-stage while warning they carry sweeping implications across virtually every industry. Companies that claw back tariffs may then face consumers asking for the markup back.

How Japanese Companies Are Fighting Back Against U.S. Tariffs

Nintendo is not the only Japanese company caught in this. Teikoku Databank estimates roughly 13,000 Japanese companies are involved in exports to North America, including the US, and China.

Sony: Diversifying Supply Chains and Stockpiling Inventory

Sony has spread PlayStation 5 production across multiple locations, building redundancy into its supply chain. It also stocked up on US inventory before the tariffs took effect, blunting the short-term cost increase. Even so, President Hiroki Totoki acknowledged an impact on results and signaled that a PS5 price increase was possible.

Automotive Industry: Negotiating Down From 25% to 15%

For Japanese automakers the problem ran deeper. An initial 25 percent duty was negotiated down to 15 percent in July 2025 talks between Tokyo and Washington. Toyota President Koji Sato called the agreement significant progress, though it remains an added burden.

Common Strategies Among Japanese Companies

Japanese responses fall into roughly three patterns.

First, geographic diversification. Companies are reducing dependence on China and Vietnam and shifting toward Cambodia, India, and elsewhere. Nintendo has reportedly considered hardware production in Cambodia.

Second, passing costs to prices. President Shuntaro Furukawa has said the basic policy is to recognize tariffs as a cost and reflect them in pricing. But with a new console in its adoption phase, the company faced an obvious dilemma about how far it could push.

Third, litigation. With the Supreme Court decision as a foundation, many companies, Japanese ones included, are suing for refunds.

The New Tariffs: Section 122 Enters the Picture

The Supreme Court voided the IEEPA tariffs, and Trump immediately reached for another instrument. Right after the loss, he insisted other statutes were available and vowed a new 10 percent tariff. Under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a flat 10 percent duty now applies to imports from everywhere. This is reportedly the first ever use of the provision, and it is limited to 150 days. Absent congressional extension, it expires.

Two dozen states are contesting the Section 122 tariffs as well. Even if the IEEPA refunds arrive, the new burden continues. Companies are fighting on two fronts: recovering unlawful past duties while managing current ones.

What Comes Next: When Will Refunds Arrive?

The CIT has affirmed the right to refunds, but CBP says it cannot act immediately. If the new processing system comes online, refunds might flow through filing procedures without waiting for litigation. But processing refunds for more than 330,000 importers is widely expected to take considerable time.

For Nintendo and everyone else, the lawsuit functions largely as insurance. Given the logic of the Supreme Court ruling, the plaintiffs will very likely prevail. When and how the money actually arrives remains unclear. Winning on policy and getting your money back are two different things.

Japan is watching closely as companies hit with enormous tariff bills assert their rights in court. Consumers felt it indirectly, through higher prices on consoles and accessories. How has tariff policy affected the games market in your country? Have you noticed price swings or supply chain problems? Tell us in the comments.

References