Because they were charged a tax they shouldn’t have been charged. A buyer agreed to the price at retail. A lot of people can probably spot the difference.
Have they actually done so and has it been effective? I doubt so. Unless you are d2c this is an enormous effort that may not be worth it. Even then you incurred costs and insecurities hence probably can’t afford to be overly generous unless you are demanding much more money than your service costs to provide.
Ah, moving goalposts now I see. CAH has provided the forms to submit your receipt and get your refund and go ask about how effective it is yourself because I wasn’t arguing or making a case about effectiveness.
I’m simply arguing that there are companies that are trying to be decent companies and pro-consumer, not arguing about the effectiveness of their pro-consumer stance.
While we’re at it let’s just get your whataboutism that you’ll also try to pull out of the way, yes most corporations will also not be making any moves to refund their customers when they get their illegal tariffs refunded and that also makes them anti-consumer asshats.
I agree that there is a clear legal distinction, but it leaves a sour taste. Nintendo should have made this right for PR.
Though, on the other side of it, Stargate project is the reason DRAM prices went to the moon, so USA suffering a little is schadenfreude for me and probably Nintendo too.
Ha! Hahaha! Haha! When the fuck has Nintendo ever worried about PR? They’ve got their place in the market completely on lock and will open litigation against anyone and everyone who even looks at their IP in a way they don’t like. Nintendo could release a console that required a pint of blood every time you boot it up, and as long as a Zelda comes out on it, they’ll still sell out.
That example costs them nothing, assuming it was digital. Nintendo may do something good when the price is $0, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do something good for an actual cost.
I’d say this argument probably doesn’t apply to something like, say, food. People can’t just opt out of eating. They can change their luxury spending to stuff that’s cheaper and doesn’t have to get imported.
I’d definitely like for this argument to be applied in Nintendo’s case, and I’ll be pleasantly surprised if a judge agrees, I guess I’m a little pessimistic though. Maybe I just have a low view of the justice system right now.
Thinking of it as movie tickets, I guess it’d be like if there was suddenly an illegal tax being imposed on every theater to charge an extra 20% per ticket. A customer’s $20 ticket becomes $24 and the theater makes up for it by passing that cost 1 to 1 onto the customer. The tax is struck down as illegal and as such the theater sues the government for that $4 per ticket.
Thinking of it this way I think it’s strange the theater is suing the government for that $4. The theater chose to upcharge for the same tickets despite the fact that they otherwise would have earned near exactly the same amount otherwise. At best I think they should be suing not for the $4/ticket but lost revenue that would have been incurred from the price increase imposed by the government.
By making headlines that they’re suing for that $4/ticket it naturally would give customers the impression that they’re entitled to at least a portion of that given the customers are the ones who actually paid that $4/ticket. The theater would have had a negligible difference in costs for operations, real estate, supplies, wages, etc during the period that tax was being imposed, so in theory they should have remained almost exactly as profitable as before, except only that the customer would have $4 less to potentially spend on anything else with their ticket.
I should also add I’m not trying to correct or refute anything you’re saying, just kinda thinking about the situation from a different perspective.
Because they were charged a tax they shouldn’t have been charged. A buyer agreed to the price at retail. A lot of people can probably spot the difference.
Yeah, like Cards Against Humanity spotted the difference and decided to not be anti-consumer asshats.
https://www.fastcompany.com/91500865/tariff-refund-cards-against-humanity-trump
Have they actually done so and has it been effective? I doubt so. Unless you are d2c this is an enormous effort that may not be worth it. Even then you incurred costs and insecurities hence probably can’t afford to be overly generous unless you are demanding much more money than your service costs to provide.
Ah, moving goalposts now I see. CAH has provided the forms to submit your receipt and get your refund and go ask about how effective it is yourself because I wasn’t arguing or making a case about effectiveness.
I’m simply arguing that there are companies that are trying to be decent companies and pro-consumer, not arguing about the effectiveness of their pro-consumer stance.
While we’re at it let’s just get your whataboutism that you’ll also try to pull out of the way, yes most corporations will also not be making any moves to refund their customers when they get their illegal tariffs refunded and that also makes them anti-consumer asshats.
Your doubts are stupid, you’re stupid
They agreed to the tax by paying it ¯_(ツ)_/¯
So did Nintendo.
That is what they said.
You dropped this: \
He’s got an arm off!
It’s just a flesh wound.
I’ve had worse
And Nintendo didn’t pay the higher rate. They passed the costs over to the consumer. Nintendo got exactly what they paid for.
Nintendo got exactly what they didn’t pay for and they’re getting the refund for it too.
I agree that there is a clear legal distinction, but it leaves a sour taste. Nintendo should have made this right for PR.
Though, on the other side of it, Stargate project is the reason DRAM prices went to the moon, so USA suffering a little is schadenfreude for me and probably Nintendo too.
Ha! Hahaha! Haha! When the fuck has Nintendo ever worried about PR? They’ve got their place in the market completely on lock and will open litigation against anyone and everyone who even looks at their IP in a way they don’t like. Nintendo could release a console that required a pint of blood every time you boot it up, and as long as a Zelda comes out on it, they’ll still sell out.
They did those things, and also gave early 3DS owners a bunch of free games for buying the console during a bad period.
Nintendo are fickle, but this seems like the type of PR thing they’d of been in to.
That example costs them nothing, assuming it was digital. Nintendo may do something good when the price is $0, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do something good for an actual cost.
I’d say this argument probably doesn’t apply to something like, say, food. People can’t just opt out of eating. They can change their luxury spending to stuff that’s cheaper and doesn’t have to get imported.
I’d definitely like for this argument to be applied in Nintendo’s case, and I’ll be pleasantly surprised if a judge agrees, I guess I’m a little pessimistic though. Maybe I just have a low view of the justice system right now.
Thinking of it as movie tickets, I guess it’d be like if there was suddenly an illegal tax being imposed on every theater to charge an extra 20% per ticket. A customer’s $20 ticket becomes $24 and the theater makes up for it by passing that cost 1 to 1 onto the customer. The tax is struck down as illegal and as such the theater sues the government for that $4 per ticket.
Thinking of it this way I think it’s strange the theater is suing the government for that $4. The theater chose to upcharge for the same tickets despite the fact that they otherwise would have earned near exactly the same amount otherwise. At best I think they should be suing not for the $4/ticket but lost revenue that would have been incurred from the price increase imposed by the government.
By making headlines that they’re suing for that $4/ticket it naturally would give customers the impression that they’re entitled to at least a portion of that given the customers are the ones who actually paid that $4/ticket. The theater would have had a negligible difference in costs for operations, real estate, supplies, wages, etc during the period that tax was being imposed, so in theory they should have remained almost exactly as profitable as before, except only that the customer would have $4 less to potentially spend on anything else with their ticket.
I should also add I’m not trying to correct or refute anything you’re saying, just kinda thinking about the situation from a different perspective.