[teorema]

That to me, is the key boundary being crossed, like enough to merit a large-class action award for any damages sustained anywhere by anyone who plugged a USB-C device into the port.

I do think there's something to be said for liability for creating a port that is so similar to USB-C, but also causing damage, akin to copyright laws, based on consumer confusion. I.e., if a reasonable person might think it is a variant of USB-C, and USB devices seem to work for long periods of time without apparent damage, then Nintendo is liable by virtue of resulting damage to the consumer's property (not to the USB organization). There's a certain liability for negligence in that case. But I could also see reasonable arguments that if Nintendo were explicitly saying it is not a USB port, that they shouldn't be liable (I don't agree but see it as a reasonable argument).

But if Nintendo is advertising it in anyway like that, they should be held liable. I just don't see a reasonable argument for why that wouldn't be the case. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[pbhjpbhj]

We don't really have class-actions in UK but under the Consumer Rights Act (CRA replaced the well known Sale of Goods Act) there's no time limit on when you can get manufacturing defects fixed so warranty repairs should be free (although you might also accept a brand new replacement and pay a little to cover the wear on your original).

In the EU there's an automatic 2 year replacement warranty on electronics too.