The user did not use any game enhancement or copier device.

The user by proxy through their device is accused of using a game enhancement or copier device and banned from the service. The device is not defective - it is blocked from access to Nintendo's online service which is separate with its own agreement and not part of the actual device or product purchased.

That's enough to give Nintendo justification to refuse the return and send it back to the customer. In reality you are not going to hire a lawyer to file a $500 claim over the Switch, because it would cost you much more in attorneys fees which are not recovered, and you are forced to use arbitration (by the Mandatory arbitration and class action waivers) which are stacked against the customer.

Amazon's vendor contracts determine whether or not Nintendo has to take the return, not any agreement between the customer and Nintendo.

It's doubtful Amazon has any kind of active contract. Even if they do; you bet Nintendo would be dictating the terms of that contract, because they definitely would.

Amazon was an authorized reseller of Nintendo but lost status at some point. Both Amazon and Nintendo are going to know about consoles that have been restricted due to user behavior, and that in itself is not a defect in the product. It's like trying to return an "iPad with Verizon SIM" because you broke Verizon's rules and got banned from having an account with them. Under some circumstances you may be allowed an exchange, but it's not a warranty return, and you probably get to pay a big restocking fee.

then Nintendo generally speaking will be hard pressed to prove that their terms of service (being a contract of adhesion) are not unconscionable.

It is unlikely a court is going to find Nintendo doesn't have the right to ban whoever they want from their online service. We have yet to see a court do so to another online service provider.

Of course Nintendo's user agreement also contains Forced Arbitration and a Class action waiver, and you have notice of these agreements on the retail package before you ever purchase your switch and open it up. It's a Clickwrap software license, and clickwrap software licenses are generally enforceable with respect to the software, no matter how restrictive the terms get about your usage of the software.

Nintendo has incentive to make used copies of games scary for consumers because they will make more money selling directly to the consumers, and this starts to rapidly fall into the "attempt to monopolize" section of the Sherman Act, which makes the behavior legally actionable federally.

It is not shown to be a violation of the Sherman act for a copyright holder to prevent the resale of their own licenses. Antitrust laws are great for promoting competition and all, but they don't require a company to allow a used market in their own intellectual property. You won't find resale of developers' games where the package shipped a printed steam code, or other one-time key, for example.

Shut up you dipshit.

DOA returns don't work that way. As a vendor, Nintendo has two choices: refund the money and pay for return shipping back to Nintendo or refund the money and let Amazon scrap the product

Nintendo can refuse the DOA as fraudulent after identifying serial numbers. These are working units which are not refundable, even if the customer caused a problem with them.

There is nothing that would require Nintendo to compensate the retailer for accepting a return from the customer which does not qualify under the manufacturer's warranty. Goods are working at the time of sale, and the customer commits a Terms of Service violation causing their unit to be restricted. There is no defect in the unit, and any return as such is a fraud no different than a customer accidentally dropping their unit and attempting to claim warranty.

Also, I think you're greatly overestimating how much effort Amazon puts into defective returns.
I think Amazon's treatment of your returns is highly dependant on the value of the item and your account history. Meaning if it's your first time they might just take the Switch return, and that may be the last you hear about it, Or they may inspect and refuse the return since it's a $500 product, Or they may refuse to let you return it because you've returned another $100+ item within the last 6 months.

I have a colleague who ordered a thousand dollar CPU and other parts, then when the shipment came from Amazon it was just an empty CPU package. Someone opened the manufacturer's package, removed the actual CPU, and shipped them an empty package that had the number of the part they ordered on it. Amazon absolutely refused to help them. That would be the first time they needed a return with Amazon. Amazon would not take the return or make it good for them in any way whatsoever. Thus they are out the cost of the CPU and only have an empty cardboard box to show for their purchase.

No, the damage is due to Nintendo arbitrarily declaring that the device is banned. Installing a game is not consumer abuse, period.

I understand your view that playing with copied games doesn't fit the criteria, but Nintendo obviously disagrees. Nintendo does not even give room to argue against them on this, however. The Warranty terms on their product specifically cite "Unreasonable" use as a condition that will disqualify the unit from warranty coverage and specifically includes "usage with game copier devices".

THIS WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY TO DAMAGES TO THE PRODUCT CAUSED BY PARTS OR REPAIRS THAT ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH OR AUTHORIZED BY NINTENDO (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADAPTERS, SOFTWARE, AND POWER SUPPLIES).
WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY IF THIS PRODUCT (a) IS USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (INCLUDING RENTAL); (b) IS DAMAGED BY ANY UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS OR TAMPERING; (c) IS DAMAGED BY NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT, UNREASONABLE USE, OR BY OTHER CAUSES UNRELATED TO DEFECTIVE MATERIALS OR WORKMANSHIP (INCLUDING USE WITH GAME ENHANCEMENT AND COPIER DEVICES)

No, you're basing this on suppositions at best. Visit the truck yards in downtown LA once - there's definitely tire particulate coating the ground there, and it's large enough to be visible, and definitely not airborne.

If you're smart, you'll return the console to Amazon as defective.

You can try, but is extremely likely Amazon would check on the status of your console with Nintendo and decline the return as the restricted product constitutes damage due to consumer abuse. Even if not.. you only get away with that maybe once.

Nintendo would almost definitely decline the return and refuse warranty service.

Nintendo would end up with a huge pile of e-waste that they can't do anything with

They'll likely refuse warranty, so they don't have a pile in the first place. If they actually did: Nintendo themself has the capability to clear the restrictions and make a note on their servers that the package is being repackaged for sale to a new customer.

If the MIG flash theft process is about as complex as ripping and burning a CD, then I guess you can expect a fair amount of loss. Enough to take action.

In theory, yes. But I would say take actions, BUT take reasonable, calculated, and proportionate actions.
Which is what they were doing before the Switch 2 launched.

The actions they are taking with the Switch2 don't actually prevent piracy. Apparently the consoles that are bricked can be used to play games only offline that you load from physical media - and it may encourage you to mod that switch. Most Nintendo games, and what people are paying for are primarily an offline experience. What are you going to do as a consumer if your console was just bricked for using copied games? IF you are truly a guilty party, then that means you have the ability to get more copied games. You are probably not running out to pay $500 for a brand new console and ewaste that one. Nintendo just gave you a modification that allows you to ONLY play copied games, and you cannot actually buy legitimate games from Nintendo anymore and play them on that exiled Switch.

They may also be creating what will become a plentiful supply of "cheap" Switch2's on the secondhand market. Switch 2's that can ONLY be used with further modification and can only play pirated games.

As for what would be more reasonable by Nintendo:

IF you copy a game, and two copies are ever being played at the same time for more than a few minutes - Nintendo can detect it, and they would know the account information as well - they could develop a policy of notifying you that you have been caught and need to pay an Invoice fee for the game, and agree to the cartridge being replaced with a digital version. It seems like a reasonable action would be to add that game cartridge ID to a blacklist that all consoles on the planet will poll any time they come online, and have code in the console's OS that bricks unauthorized cartridges. Nintendo with their always-on telemetry can see what customers are doing with their devices. There is really no need to ban entire consoles, unless the console itself has become compromised.

The purchaser can, however, lose the item such as Nintendo did in this case; although what they did was, IMHO, a bit excessive.

What Nintendo did is far out of proportion, and I would suggest that they owe their customer both an apology AND compensation. Like: send them a gift card and a free replacement for their game cart, and then Void the old cart ID's ability to be played on their network.

Nintendo is a billion dollar company. Pushing an update to a console revoking a certain game cartridge ID's capability to be played rather than bricking the whole console should be a simple matter. Assuming no unauthorized modifications or code are made to run on the console itself are detected - which will generally be the case; It should be impossible for end users to circumvent a certain cartridge ID being found on a blacklist providing the cartridges' unique identifiers are protected with a digital signature.

a person who unknowingly purchase a counterfeit game isn't guilty of a crime; although the seller is if they know or should know it's counterfeit.

It is not a crime for the buyer. And it's a Civil tort not a crime for the seller; even if they knowingly sold a few unauthorized copies in violation of copyright laws. Copyright infringement with intent to profit becomes a crime when the seller has willfully sold a certain number of Infringing copies within a 6-month period which have a retail value in excess of certain dollar amounts. In short if they only sold a few unauthorized carts - there is no crime, and it's a civil matter. If they are selling or distributing approximately 30 or more $80 Switch carts that are unauthorized copies within a span of half a year, then it becomes a crime for them.

When two copies of the same game are running at the same time, that's proof of guilt.

False. It is evidence that one or both running instance of the game might be illegal copies.

A party without intent or knowledge is by definition an innocent party.

The temporary lockout seems to me to be equivalent to arrest on probable cause.

There is no probable cause for arrest. Even if the physical cartridge was found out to be stolen in the buyer's possession the cartridge is not enough to show probable cause. The only thing you are facing is that police are going to take stolen article, since you have no right to keep it. Only way you would have committed a crime would be purchasing, receiving, or holding an item willfully with knowledge that it was stolen.

An arrest when you didn't would be unlawful, and the authorities would fail at the probable cause hearing, Unless they are also able to provide some tangible evidence the person in possession committed the actual theft or with criminal intent conspired in the theft, or in a related crime, before probable cause arises.

For example; even if it was something high-value such as you purchased car, and unbeknownst to you it turns out to be a stolen car. You are not subject to arrest for having unknowingly purchased it, and there is no probable cause for arrest. By the same token: the police are going to take custody of the car and return it, and in general your recourse will be a civil lawsuit against the person who sold you the car, which can only proceed to discover and trial after the conclusion of any criminal charges and investigation against the seller are resolved.

Some times you just want to be entertained, especially when the world seems like it's getting shittier.

I don't need another superhero movie where it spends most of its time trying to depress me. It's OK to go 'full comic', drop the grimdark, and just have fun.

Tell the Russians your astroturf is getting stale as fuck and you need some new lines. This is the stupidest and most easily disproven strawman argument ever. Public chargers are common enough in the urban sprawl that when you have to charge your car for a half hour or so every other week for your (gasp!) 7-mile commute you won't have any problems doing it, even if there's no way to [charge it overnight all night every night] as you profess to obsessively think would ever be even remotely necessary in any un-contrived situation, and at about half the cost of the equivalent miles in gasoline unsubsudized, good luck making the math part of that argument work too. Giving you the absolute greatest benefit of the doubt for all this stupid bullshit, I have to assume you just love huffing gasoline and you love smelling like it too, and it has damaged your judgement... because it couldn't be the Russians paying you for this lie on a loop, could it? Could it??

Right to repair is unrelated.

That movement is mainly about requiring manufacturers supply to consumers and independent repairers the same repair parts, access to information, and tools such as diagnostic programs used by their authorized manufacturer repairers.

Right to repair does not have anything to do with making a device continue to run after termination by the manufacturer of availability of cloud services or an app they designed the device to depend upon.

Right to repair has also been co-opted by the large manufacturers and their lobbyists by getting major concessions written into the right to repair laws that essentially make them useless. For example Apple won't have to supply their individual specialized chips on a module, and they can make it available only as an entire assembly for order which will cost more than the phone.

They can still avoid supplying necessary tools to calibrate a new lid angle sensor for "security reasons".

Essentially: Right to repair was a great idea, but it has essentially failed because it has been co-opted and rendered ineffective, and it did not apply to this particular issue in the first place. For these reasons you need a new movement on this issue that you could think of as proximate to Right to repair, but it's still out of the scope of what Right to repair proposals have sought to accomplish.

We need a Stop killing electronics movement to complement the stop killing games movement. Concerning the design of electronics that cannot be operated at some random time in the future when the manufacturer decides to shut down their cloud servers.

In this case, if you've connected them via HomeKit then they'll carry on working without issue.

Unless you need to rebuild your home network or factory reset the device for some reason to troubleshoot it, Then it will be bricked.
The unit also effectively lost its resell value as the new owner won't be able to set it up on their new Homekit network.

I see.. Well this is unlikely to affect installs of Ubuntu then, unless you actually install it as a graphical desktop environment. Containerizing Chromium may be a very smart decision for them; however.. the program is a huge security risk, since it interacts with untrusted websites and likely has 0day vulnerabilities yet to be discovered. Sandboxing Chromium's file access to a container could help mitigate some potential exploits.

I just have no need, since there are several other perfectly robust solutions, and snapd or whatever they call it is late to the party. QEMU-KVM with a separate virtual machine window for each of my Chromium sessions. plus Qubes OS.

There's another problem in that the Smithsonian owns the Discovery now, and their bill "requires the director" of this Private institution to not only work with NASA to plan a move of the shuttle, But also to Transfer title ownership. In other words an eminent domain takings. The US Constitution has this thing called the 5th amendment which requires that just compensation: Fair market value be paid for such a taking.

How much money will the US government be required to pay the Smithsonian as "Fair market value" for the Discovery in order to conduct this taking? I'm pretty sure 85$ Million doesn't cover it. I would guestimate they need to pay out $3 Billion at a bare minimum not including all the costs for logistics in order to actually perform the move.

It'd take a lot more than the $85 million in the bill just to re-commission one of these.

They were decommed, And probably no longer maintained nor owned by the US government. How much to buy back the remains of those aircraft just to try and rebuild them? They might be better off contracting Boeing to build a new shuttle carrier at this point.