I mean, not quite the same logic. The tariffs that Nintendo paid were deemed illegal. The price consumers paid was not deemed to be illegal. At least, not yet, as the case is ongoing.
I’m sure their logic would also say “When we raised prices, fewer people bought our stuff, so we already paid the price.” Or something skeezy like that.
I mean, not quite the same logic. The tariffs that Nintendo paid were deemed illegal. The price consumers paid was not deemed to be illegal. At least, not yet, as the case is ongoing.
I’m sure their logic would also say “When we raised prices, fewer people bought our stuff, so we already paid the price.” Or something skeezy like that.