Comment on Nintendo Responds To Tariff Refunds Lawsuit, Tells Customers They "Got What They Bargained For"
Katana314@lemmy.world 1 week agoI’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.
MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.