What Is the Nintendo Lawsuit?
The Nintendo lawsuit is a set of separate court cases, and the one brought by buyers is Hoffert v. Nintendo of America Inc., a proposed class action over tariff refunds. Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan filed it in federal court in Seattle on April 21, 2026, and they ask the court to certify a class of all people in the United States who bought goods from Nintendo between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026 at prices Nintendo raised.
People searching for a Nintendo lawsuit often mean one of the other cases instead. Nintendo is also the plaintiff in a patent case against the maker of Palworld and in several piracy cases, and each of those is a different proceeding with its own court and its own facts, covered under the related cases below.
“Plaintiffs now claim that they are entitled to recover some or all of those refunds. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Nintendo’s pricing adjustments were lawful.”
Source: Source: Hoffert v. Nintendo of America Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01360-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, Document 21, Introduction (filed July 20, 2026)
Why Was the Nintendo Lawsuit Filed?
The Nintendo lawsuit was filed because the plaintiffs say Nintendo collected tariff costs from buyers through higher prices and will now receive the same tariffs back from the government. The Supreme Court held on February 20, 2026 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the 2025 tariffs, and Nintendo of America sued the United States on March 6, 2026 to recover the duties it paid.
The Hoffert complaint argues that Nintendo would earn "windfall profits" if it keeps those refunds after passing the cost to shoppers. Nintendo answers that buyers received exactly what they paid for and that no law requires a retroactive rebate. In general, whether a seller must pass a refund on to customers is an open legal question that a court has not yet decided in this case.
What Harms Does the Nintendo Lawsuit Allege?
The Nintendo lawsuit includes three distinct categories of harm, and they run in opposite directions: buyers allege overcharges, while Nintendo alleges patent and copyright infringement by others. Each category belongs to a different case, and none of the allegations has been decided by a court.
Tariff-Related Overcharges
A tariff-related overcharge is a price increase that a seller attributes to import duties and that a buyer later argues was not owed once the duties were struck down.
The Hoffert complaint alleges that buyers paid prices raised to account for IEEPA tariffs. It points to increases such as the Switch 2 Pro Controller moving from $79.99 to $84.99 and the Switch 2 Dock Set moving from $109.99 to $119.99, and to higher U.S. prices on the original Switch family that took effect on August 3, 2025.
Nintendo says memory, labor, and shipping costs also drove its pricing and that it absorbed the tariff cost on the Switch 2 console itself, which kept its $449.99 price.
Patent Infringement
Patent infringement is the unauthorized making, using, or selling of an invention that a valid patent covers, and it lets the patent owner seek an injunction and damages.
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company allege that Pocketpair's game Palworld infringes three Japanese patents on catching and riding creatures. They sued in the Tokyo District Court on September 18, 2024 and seek an injunction plus damages. Pocketpair denies wrongdoing, so this is an allegation, not a finding.
Copyright Infringement and Piracy
Copyright infringement is the copying or distribution of a protected work without the owner's permission, and in the United States a court can award statutory damages per work.
Nintendo of America has sued individuals who allegedly distributed pirated Switch games or circumvention tools. In two of those cases the defendants did not defend themselves, and the courts entered default judgments, which means the facts were taken as alleged because no one contested them.
What Is the Current Status of the Nintendo Lawsuit?
The current status of the Nintendo lawsuit is pending, with no ruling reported on Nintendo's motion to dismiss the buyers' case as of November 10, 2026. None of the four Nintendo proceedings below has produced a class settlement, and the one buyer case has not reached class certification.
Hoffert v. Nintendo of America Inc.
Judge Richard A. Jones of the Western District of Washington has two Nintendo filings from July 20, 2026 before him: a motion to dismiss with prejudice and a motion to compel Mr. Hoffert's claims into individual arbitration. The motion to dismiss is filed as to Mr. Hoffert only if arbitration is denied, and Nintendo reserved the right to seek arbitration of Mr. Sharan's claims later.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle) |
| Case Number | 2:26-cv-01360-RAJ |
| Judge | Richard A. Jones |
| Filed | April 21, 2026 |
| Plaintiffs | Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan |
| Defendant | Nintendo of America Inc. |
| Claims Pleaded | Unjust enrichment, money had and received, Washington Consumer Protection Act, declaratory relief |
| Proposed Class | All persons in the United States who purchased goods from Nintendo from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026 in which Nintendo raised prices |
| Class Action or MDL | Proposed class action, not an MDL; no class certified |
| Motion to Dismiss | Filed July 20, 2026; noted for August 17, 2026; no ruling reported |
| Settlement | None reported |
A ruling for Nintendo on arbitration would send at least Mr. Hoffert's claims out of court, while a ruling against it would let the court reach the dismissal arguments.
Nintendo of America Inc. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury
Nintendo's own refund suit sits in the U.S. Court of International Trade, where Judge Richard K. Eaton oversees the large group of IEEPA refund cases. Nintendo's July 2026 filing says the government has started a refund process for certain importers while litigation over its refund obligations continues.
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
| Case Number | 1:26-cv-01540 |
| Judge | Richard K. Eaton |
| Filed | March 6, 2026 |
| Relief Sought | Prompt refund of IEEPA duties, with interest |
| Status | Pending; no merits ruling reported |
Nintendo Co., Ltd. and The Pokémon Company v. Pocketpair, Inc.
The Palworld patent case remains pending in the Tokyo District Court with no ruling or settlement reported. Reports say the court was due to give its opinion on November 9, 2026, and no coverage of an outcome had surfaced by November 10. The full history sits on the Palworld Nintendo lawsuit page.
| Court | Tokyo District Court |
| Filed | September 18, 2024 |
| Claim | Patent infringement over three Japanese patents |
| Scope | Narrowed in November 2025 to older Palworld versions, according to reports |
| Status | Pending |
Nintendo of America Inc. v. Williams
Judge Lauren King entered a $4.5 million default judgment for Nintendo on September 23, 2026 against James Williams, known online as Archbox, a former r/SwitchPirates moderator. The award covers 30 games and comes with a permanent injunction, and coverage doubts that the money will be collected.
| Court | U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington |
| Case Number | 2:24-cv-00960 |
| Judge | Lauren King |
| Filed | June 28, 2024 |
| Outcome | Default judgment of $4.5 million plus permanent injunction, entered September 23, 2026 |
Has the Nintendo Lawsuit Settled?
No. The Nintendo tariff lawsuit has not settled, and no settlement fund, claim form, or deadline exists as of November 10, 2026.
The Hoffert complaint seeks restitution and damages for the proposed class without stating a total, and no court has found that Nintendo owes buyers anything. Any amount per buyer would depend on which products a person bought, which prices rose, and whether a class is ever certified, so only a qualified attorney reviewing a specific purchase history can say what a claim might be worth.
The price increases cited in the complaint are small per item, $5 on the Switch 2 Pro Controller and $10 on the Switch 2 Dock Set, so even a successful case would likely mean modest sums per purchase before any fees.
Separately, the Archbox default judgment is an award to Nintendo, not a payment to buyers, and it has no bearing on what a Nintendo customer could receive.
Nintendo Lawsuit Updates and Case Status
Here is the current status of the Nintendo lawsuit, updated with new filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. Litigation in the Hoffert tariff refund class action against Nintendo of America remains active as of November 2026, with no bellwether trial or settlement completed. The timeline below tracks every confirmed development from the first filing forward.
Nintendo Lawsuit Timeline
No Ruling Reported in the Buyers' Case or the Palworld Case
A search of coverage on November 10, 2026 found no ruling on Nintendo's motion to dismiss or motion to compel arbitration in Hoffert v. Nintendo of America Inc., and no reported outcome from the Tokyo District Court's November 9 date in the Palworld patent case.
Court Awards Nintendo $4.5 Million Against Archbox
U.S. District Judge Lauren King in the Western District of Washington granted Nintendo's motion for default judgment against former r/SwitchPirates moderator James Williams on September 23, 2026. The $4.5 million award covers 30 games, and the court also entered a permanent injunction.
Nintendo Moves to Dismiss the Buyers' Class Action
Nintendo of America filed its motion to dismiss Hoffert v. Nintendo of America Inc. on July 20, 2026, asking Judge Richard A. Jones to dismiss with prejudice. It filed a separate motion to compel Mr. Hoffert's claims into arbitration the same day, and it argues that buyers received exactly what they bargained and paid for.
Two Buyers File a Proposed Class Action in Seattle
Gregory Hoffert and Prashant Sharan filed Hoffert v. Nintendo of America Inc. on April 21, 2026, asking that tariff refunds be passed on to a nationwide class of buyers. The case is assigned to Judge Richard A. Jones.
Nintendo Sues the United States for Its Tariff Refund
Nintendo of America filed its own suit in the Court of International Trade on March 6, 2026, seeking prompt refunds with interest of duties paid under the IEEPA executive orders. The case is numbered 1:26-cv-01540.
Supreme Court Rules the IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
The Supreme Court held 6 to 3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026 that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs, and the tariffs ended on February 24, 2026. That ruling opened the door to the refund claims that both Nintendo and the Hoffert plaintiffs now pursue.
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company Narrow the Palworld Case
According to reports, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company narrowed their Tokyo claims against Pocketpair in November 2025 to older versions of Palworld only, after Pocketpair changed parts of the game.
Colorado Court Enters Default Judgment Against Streamer EveryGameGuru
A federal court in Colorado entered a default judgment for Nintendo against streamer Jesse Keighin, known as EveryGameGuru, awarding $17,500 and a permanent injunction in a case filed on November 6, 2024. Reports say he evaded the proceedings and streamed Nintendo games before their release.
Nintendo Raises U.S. Prices on the Original Switch Family
Nintendo's higher U.S. prices for the Switch OLED, Switch, Switch Lite and other products took effect on August 3, 2025 after an announcement on August 1. The Hoffert complaint relies on that notice and on later accessory increases.
Palworld Patent Suit Is Filed in Tokyo
Nintendo and The Pokémon Company filed a patent infringement suit against Pocketpair, Inc. in the Tokyo District Court on September 18, 2024, seeking an injunction and damages over Palworld.
Nintendo Sues Archbox in Seattle
Nintendo of America filed Nintendo of America Inc. v. Williams, No. 2:24-cv-00960, in the Western District of Washington on June 28, 2024, alleging large-scale distribution of pirated Switch games.
What Evidence Does the Nintendo Lawsuit Rely On?
The Nintendo tariff lawsuit relies on Nintendo's own public statements about prices and tariffs. The complaint cites Nintendo's April 18, 2025 notice that it was maintaining Switch 2 pricing, its May 2025 financial results briefing, and its August 1, 2025 Switch pricing update, and Nintendo's motion says those documents may be considered because the complaint relies on them.
The complaint also highlights remarks by Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa that tariff costs would be recognized as part of product cost and incorporated into prices, according to IGN's reporting. Neither plaintiff, Nintendo argues, says which products they bought, where, or for how much, so proof of a specific purchase is likely to matter if the case advances.
What Did Nintendo Allegedly Know About the Tariff Refunds?
Nintendo allegedly knew the tariff costs would be recovered if the tariffs fell, because it paid the duties as importer of record and sued the government for them within two weeks of the Supreme Court ruling. The two sides agree on many basic facts and disagree on what follows from them.
| Point | What the plaintiffs allege | What Nintendo says |
|---|---|---|
| Price increases | Nintendo collected tariff costs from consumers through elevated pricing | Nintendo made modest, selective adjustments based on memory, labor, shipping, and tariff costs |
| Switch 2 console | Not the focus, accessories and original Switch products are cited | Nintendo absorbed the tariff cost on the Switch 2 console |
| Refund | Nintendo will earn windfall profits if it keeps the refunds | No legal duty exists to give buyers a rebate on completed sales |
Nintendo also points to its public warnings that tariffs would raise costs and put upward pressure on consumer prices, which it says the plaintiffs admit in the complaint.
How Does the Nintendo Lawsuit Compare to Related Cases?
The Nintendo lawsuit compares to related cases as the only one where buyers are the plaintiffs, while Nintendo is the plaintiff in the others. The table separates the proceedings so that a result in one is not read as a result in another.
| Case | Who sues whom | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Hoffert v. Nintendo of America Inc. | Two buyers, for a proposed class, sue Nintendo | Pending; motion to dismiss filed |
| Palworld patent case | Nintendo and The Pokémon Company sue Pocketpair in Tokyo | Pending; see the Palworld page |
| Nintendo of America Inc. v. Williams | Nintendo sues a former Reddit moderator | Default judgment, $4.5 million |
| Universal City Studios v. Nintendo | Universal sued Nintendo over Donkey Kong in the 1980s | Closed; see the 1983 case page |
| Joy-Con drift cases | Parents and buyers sued Nintendo over controller drift | Closed in 2022 and 2024, per public summaries |
Separately, video game addiction suits against several game companies name Nintendo of America in at least some complaints, but those are different claims from the tariff case and this page has not verified their current docket status.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Nintendo lawsuit about?
The Nintendo lawsuit is about several separate cases, and the one brought by buyers asks whether Nintendo must pass tariff refunds back to customers who paid higher prices. That case is Hoffert v. Nintendo of America Inc. in federal court in Seattle, and it was filed on April 21, 2026.
Is the Nintendo lawsuit a class action?
The Nintendo tariff lawsuit is a proposed class action, and no class has been certified. It is not an MDL because it is one case before Judge Richard A. Jones. The proposed class covers people in the United States who bought goods from Nintendo between February 1, 2025 and February 24, 2026 at prices Nintendo raised.
Has the Nintendo lawsuit settled?
The Nintendo lawsuit has not settled, and no settlement fund or claim form exists as of November 10, 2026. Nintendo has asked the court to dismiss the buyers' case, and no ruling on that request has been reported.
Is the Nintendo lawsuit the same as the Palworld lawsuit?
No. The Palworld lawsuit is a patent case that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company brought against Pocketpair in the Tokyo District Court, while the Hoffert case is a buyers' class action against Nintendo in Seattle. Each has its own court and its own status.
Did Nintendo sue the U.S. government over tariffs?
Yes. Nintendo of America sued the U.S. government over tariffs in the Court of International Trade on March 6, 2026, seeking a prompt refund with interest of duties paid under the IEEPA orders. The Hoffert plaintiffs say buyers should share in any such refund.
Can I join the Nintendo lawsuit?
No claim form or sign-up exists for the Nintendo lawsuit, and nobody is in the proposed class unless a judge certifies one. Keeping receipts or order emails for Nintendo purchases made from February 1, 2025 through February 24, 2026 is a reasonable precaution, and only a qualified attorney can say whether a person has a claim.