I don't see how the consumer won in any of this.
It's about if the United States is a country that respects the rule of law, or some failed 3rd world state, where the law is only respected if the dear leader likes it.
The first one is much better for economic development
But this will only further build up the low trust society when it feels like consumers only lose and never gains any of society's benefits.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/06/cbp-tells-judge-it-...
> Under customs law, importers generally have about 314 days after goods enter the country before a tariff payment is finalized, a process known as “liquidation.”
> If companies fail to challenge the duty and request a refund after the duty is finalized — or liquidated — they must file a formal protest and, in some cases, challenge the decision in the New York-based trade court to recover the funds.
Well done America.
Taxpayers already paid for it, companies raised their prices to compensate.
The Trump administration immediately invoked Section 122 for a 10% duty on nonexempt imports and announced expanded Section 232 and 301 investigations.
The taxpayer that paid the tariff was the consumer. The fact Nintendo actually wrote the check is largely accounting, this was passed on to the consumer.
The taxpayer that receives the refund is Nintendo, straight into their profits.
So the taxpayer paying and the taxpayer receiving are totally different. This is basically like regressive welfare where consumer paid a private but government imposed tax to corporations.
The money that has passed various deadlines may be more difficult to return, however it is still money that is due to Nintendo. That may be more difficult to obtain, but it isn't the government's money in the first place.
US tax payers aren't paying money to Nintendo - they're paying for the government's lawyers to try to argue against not paying back illegally collected tariffs.
https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/ieepa-tariffs-struck-down-what...
Take my upvote.
Also, do/will these companies drop prices if/when tariffs are reversed?
Every shipment from overseas would essentially have a line item for tariffs due. Just add them up.
1. Trump could decide what to apply the negative tariff to (e.g. Trump merchandise or his buddies)
2. If there's a fixed amount of money to dole out and suppliers know it, approximately zero dollars will be given back to consumers because it will be easy to capture the money on the importer side.
Whether some downstream consumer of those imported goods paid a price that would have been lower if not for the tariff is a commercial question between them and whoever they paid. Maybe they would have, maybe they wouldn't have. There isn't any objective way to calculate what the price of suchandsuch Nintendo product would have been in the counterfactual.
This is no different from any other cost. Their cost of goods is lower in retrospect than they thought it was, so it will show up as a gain on their income statement.
What's the economic effect, though? One way to model a tariff that's later refunded is that it's sort of like if a cartel colluded to temporarily keep prices higher. Competition between firms often keeps prices close to costs, but this wouldn't be true for a monopoly or a cartel.
Here's the Courtlistener docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72373888/nintendo-of-am...
loeg•4h ago
lemoncookiechip•4h ago
jasoneckert•3h ago
As a result, Nintendo's legal team is far more likely to ensure they get refunded, and quickly. They could provide a template for others to follow.
RyJones•3h ago
rectang•3h ago
(EDIT: I just mean as a litigious company, well-known for its legal team.)
dafelst•3h ago
TimorousBestie•3h ago
mschuster91•3h ago
Say, they get pissed off too much… they could run campaigns just days before the election if they wanted.
happytoexplain•3h ago
loeg•3h ago
happytoexplain•3h ago