this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
591 points (99.8% liked)

Technology

84019 readers
3258 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Two gamers have filed a class action lawsuit against Nintendo, alleging that the company will be unjustly enriching itself with any refund it secures from the U.S. government over widespread tariffs last year that, among other things, hiked the prices of Nintendo hardware and accessories.

“Unless restrained by this Court, Nintendo stands to recover the same tariff payments twice—once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds,” the suit states.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 2 points 10 minutes ago

Like everything else Trump does this too was a grift by him to funnel money to the rich. He should be a part of this law suit.

[–] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago

I think it's presumptuous to assume that the increase in prices that just happened to be identical to the tarrifs had anything to do with the tarrifs.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 80 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Nintendo: you know what? Fuck you. Our prices just went up for you. Games are $120 now. Fuck you, you'll still buy our pokemon slop we spent 0 effort making. Mario? Yep, $120, but now when he jumps he says "fucka youuuu!" You'll still buy it, because Mario.

[–] frightful5680@lemmy.world 1 points 38 minutes ago

You reminded me of a b rated movie about some old coots in NY. There's a kid who says that to anything anyone says to him.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I've been ootl on Pokemon since y/x, and even was barely paying attention before someone else bought it for me. But the shit I saw when sword shield(? First switch title) was wild. They really were just phoning it in, and people still bought everything else they dropped! The only reason I got a switch was for prime 4, and likely won't be getting a switch 2. Sucks watching my nostalgia be abused in real time.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

You can still enjoy the games you are nostalgic for with emulators.

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I love how nintendo are switching our youths back towards old school tactics. Emulators and piracy are having their renaissance.

[–] frightful5680@lemmy.world 1 points 37 minutes ago

Never left for me. 😎

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 1 points 25 minutes ago

I got tired of the new games being shit and/or not done when. I think last game I bought new was No Man's Sky (yes I know, its decent now, I still play it sometimes), after that disappointment I just gave up. I haven't been paying attention on whats coming, whats the newest big game.. I just play emulators. I play the games that I wanted to play when I was a kid, but couldn't. My gaming journey started with Amiga 500, then I got a NES, after that a Game Gear, then a Play Station 1. So I've been gaming a lot of SNES stuff lately, I downloaded a bunch of Atari titles. Sega games are next on the list.

Theres so much to play, I will die before I run out of stuff. I think I'll never buy a new game ever again.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours ago

And I do sometimes, some community made ones and randomizers on occasion. It would just be nice to have something to look forward to when the used market becomes more affordable.

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 38 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Friendly reminder that the Boston Tea Party was about tariffs. We know what works.

[–] TheRiskiestBiscuit@reddthat.com 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I would eat the cost of gas to watch people tweeting their Switch 2’s into the harbor. Boston or Baltimore this time around?

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

No no no. You don’t yeet devices into the harbor that have been paid for already. You yeet unsold devices.

Exactly. The tea was sitting in the harbor because it hadn’t been sold yet. The toilet paper warehouse fire was analogous to the Boston tea party, and they’re threatening the dude with the death penalty for it.

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

Right. The tea wasn't from their homes

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Imagine what gon' happen when you try to tax our whisky.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago

A rebellion? Because that didn't end so well.

[–] ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

Imagine... Or just read how that went in 1794.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[–] FUCKING_CUNO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 168 points 9 hours ago (20 children)

What is the logic behind giving a company money for the tariffs? The costs were invariably passed to the consumer, so how does paying the company make any sense?

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 166 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The logic was “these companies ate the cost” and when confronted with the fact that prices went up and the costs had been passed on to consumers, the clarification they provided was “nuh uh”.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

and when confronted with the fact that prices went up and the costs had been passed on to consumers, the clarification they provided was “nuh uh”.

the argument is, when a price goes up, there will be fewer sales and therefore less revenue/profit

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 28 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Which makes me want to say things that would get me banned for multiple reasons.

[–] SmokedBillionaire@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Loco_Mex@sh.itjust.works 1 points 35 minutes ago

You have now been banned from Lemmy.World

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 64 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (6 children)

This is America. You’re not a person unless you’re a corporation.

[–] suicidaleggroll@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

It didn't take long to go from "corporations are people" to "the only people that matter are corporations"

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 9 hours ago

The companies are the ones who paid the tariffs directly and then passed the cost onto their customers.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 23 points 9 hours ago (7 children)

The companies paid the tarrif, they get the refund.

The fact that tariffs allowed some companies to demand more money, is related but not causal, some companies will have had to eat shit because the market wouldn't bare the increase.

I'd love for the lawsuit to succeed and it set the precedent that when governments issue refunds they can force companies to pass it on to the customer, but I think it's unlikely.

It's also complicated by the way pricing works.

If the tarrif is for $15 but the uncertainty allowed a company to increase prices by $20, how much should the customer be refunded?

And what if the tarrif was $15 but the market only allowed a $10 increase and the company ate shit on the other $5?

Now what if none of these numbers are set in stone and all of the numbers are guesswork? Should the government audit all companies that changed their prices?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

The logic is real "dumb" or simple. The company that paid the tariff gets the refund.

Tariffs are paid at the port of entry and before you are allowed to physically get the goods out of the port. So the payer is not always the manufacturer. Sometimes it's an importer or middleman. Sometimes a retailer. It could be you if you shipped in a package from overseas.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 20 points 9 hours ago

And the players should win this case. It’s pretty obviously true that Nintendo would be recovering tariff money twice.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago

Almost perfect. You forgot to replace "community chest" with "shareholder portfolios"

load more comments
view more: next ›