this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
1030 points (99.8% liked)

Technology

84043 readers
8749 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FUCKING_CUNO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 251 points 1 day ago (22 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 223 points 1 day 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 46 points 1 day 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 50 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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

[–] SmokedBillionaire@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Loco_Mex@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You have now been banned from Lemmy.World

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 4 points 16 hours ago

MFW a zionist bans me, then my entire instance without a vote, then unbans the instance, then censors everyone who complains, then mods me, then unmods me, then bans me again, then unbans me, VIP, ban, unban, ban.

FoiywZFJ620rfS6.png

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 90 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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

[–] suicidaleggroll@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] korazail@lemmy.myserv.one 8 points 1 day ago

And everyone who cried out a warning at the first step was ignored.

[–] SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is it expensive to file corporate taxes in the US? It really sounds like if everyone represented themselves as a corporation they would have more rights.

[–] forty2@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you're looking for a new rabbit hole to explore...theres an entire crowd of people who firmly believe that the government creates a corporate version of you when you're born, and that your name in CAPS on the birth certificate is evidence of this.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's also endless content of them confidently presenting these arguments to judges when they've broken laws and being immediately shut down by said judges.

The whole thing is a scam by Big Driver-Side-Front-Window to boost their sales.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the birth certificate

Berth certificate, making us all boats and therefore subject to maritime law.

It sounds like a stupid joke because it is but also one of their things.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I want to believe you're joking, I really do...

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago

Me too. Reality is dumber than fiction.

Many freemen beliefs are based on idiosyncratic interpretations of admiralty or maritime law, which the freemen claim govern the commercial world. These beliefs stem from fringe interpretations of various nautical-sounding terms, such as ownership, citizenship, dock, or birth (berth) certificate. Freemen refer to the court as a ship and the court's occupants as passengers, and may claim that those leaving are "men overboard".

From the Wiki article about Freemen on the Land, a SovCit offshoot.

[–] kurcatovium@piefed.social 3 points 21 hours ago

The Art of the Deal

[–] velma@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 1 day ago

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

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (1 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?

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

They should not be allowed to price based on "uncertainty" - if the tariff increases by 15, the buyer should pay that much and no more. So, anyone who bought at the increased 20 dollar price should receive 5 back.

Of course they'll never do this.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

All pricing under capitalism is based on uncertainty.

What the market will bare isn't a known thing.

Side-note: this is why YIMBYs are dumb as fuck when they apply econ101 to rents.

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

That's great in theory, but in practice these days the US sets tariffs the way rideshare companies do surge pricing.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also what happens when the companies are forced to eat part of the tarrif, if the tarrif is 15, but that pushes the prices above the maximum profit point (units sold * per unit profit) then how much tarrif back should the customer get?

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fuck that. They should push back against the government.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

They did and they got the tarrifs refunded.

The issue is that with markets nothing is tightly coupled.

[–] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Personally, I don't think anyone should get anything back for unnecessary luxury items like video games. Food and health products? Maybe. Video games? No way. If you're willing to pay $90 for a video game designed for five year olds, you can afford to take the hit.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

The company paid for it initially, but the customer actually paid for it.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

There’s no logic. They don’t know how to fix the things they broke.

Taxpayers paid the tariffs once when prices got hiked, paid the resulting inflation costs, now we are paying those companies back with taxpayer money, which will continue to drive up inflation again.

We’re paying 4 times.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago

What is the logic behind giving a company money for the tariffs?

Well, the logic is the fact that the tariffs were illegal.

The honourable thing to do would be to pay that money back to the customers, but that would make the shareholders sad and grumpy, so it's never going to happen.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Because the companies are the ones that literally paid the tariffs and the gov doesn't have records of how that burden was distributed, and thus couldn't possibly enforce it.

In short, they're completely unprepared for this situation they put themselves in.

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's records of customers buying products at inflated costs due to the tariffs as well. They absolutely can refund people if they get a refund.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

If those records do exist, they're with the company, not the govt.

[–] DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

And the company should be legally held responsible go reimbursing its customers.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Again, there's no way to enforce that.

They enforce plenty of draconian shit just fine, I think they can find a way.

[–] VeloRama@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

i guess it only makes sense in the maga world. if i was in nintendos shoes, i would have done the same. who knows when tariffs change yet again, the tariff compensation is withdrawn or whatever the fuck. the trump administration flip-flops all over the place so fuck em.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because the company handled all the nonsense of importing on behalf of the end customer (also most intermediaries).

The youtube channel HowNot2 talked about this a bit since they somehow became a(n actually really good) climbing gear store. Because tariffs were changing so frequently (often multiple times a day), basically nobody could plan for them. So companies had to balance their in-country stock with anything they were going to buy in the next few months... or even days. And try to figure out what price they might be paying.

Some companies basically just charged the tariff rate on any given day... which is bullshit since they would have bulk purchased whatever they could while they were "low". Others would eat the cost because they didn't want to lose customers by increasing the price of a preordered item. And so forth.

And... people who got their aliexpress on can tell horror stories of getting a bill once things made it through customs.

So... it actually makes perfect sense for the companies that dealt with this bullshit to get reimbursed by the christofacists. I would hope they would "pass it on" to the customers as an act of good faith (even if it is just a free game or something) but... this is a case where the problem isn't the corporations: it is the government.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

this is a case where the problem isn't the corporations: it is the government.

It can be both.

So... it actually makes perfect sense for the companies that dealt with this bullshit to get reimbursed by the christofacists.

If the company ate the cost, sure.

If the company raised the price on consumers to cover the tariffs, the consumers already made the company whole. If the company gets the reimbursement money on top of that, they're double dipping.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

It makes sense if you're grifting

load more comments (9 replies)