Nintendo is arguing that consumers voluntarily paid higher prices due to tariffs and, therefore, have no right to refunds, even if those tariffs were later invalidated. This defense is part of broader legal battles where plaintiffs claim companies improperly passed on tariff costs while seeking government refunds.

Lawyers note that the legal theory behind these lawsuits spans various industries, with the core argument being that companies cannot retain tariff refunds while charging consumers for those same tariffs. Businesses may also defend against claims of unjust enrichment by pointing to existing contracts with customers.

Nintendo, facing a lawsuit, has moved to compel arbitration, citing evidence that the plaintiff, Mr. Hoffert, "affirmatively accepted contractual agreements with Nintendo at least twice." This strategy is common, as companies often use mandatory arbitration clauses in their terms and conditions to resolve disputes outside of court. The company reserves the right to pursue arbitration if further discovery indicates arbitrability.