Recently, Logitech, a leading brand in the peripheral industry, has encountered a series of major issues. First, it faced a class-action lawsuit initiated by consumers in the United States, and earlier, it angered a large number of Chinese users due to inappropriate advertising copy, severely damaging the brand's reputation.
On August 18 local time, a well-known US law firm formally filed a class-action lawsuit at the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California Federal Court, listing Logitech as the primary defendant.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit represent all eligible US consumers, accusing Logitech of raising product prices by up to 25% in 2025 under the pretext of increased additional tariffs. However, the subsequent tariff policy was ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court, and the US government refunded the collected tariffs to the involved companies. After receiving the refund, Logitech failed to return the extra costs previously borne by consumers.
Details disclosed in the complaint show that Logitech concentrated on raising the retail prices of at least half of its products in the US market in April 2025, with an average increase of about 14% across all categories, and some popular peripherals seeing price hikes as high as 25%. For instance, the flagship office mouse MX Master 3S saw its price jump directly from $99.99 to $119.99, an increase of over 130 yuan, while the entry-level K400 Plus wireless touch keyboard rose from $27.99 to $34.99, a hike far exceeding the actual cost increase imposed by tariffs on the company.
Logitech's Chief Financial Officer Matteo Anversa publicly revealed in a recent earnings call that this wave of concentrated price hikes directly boosted the company's gross margin by approximately 150 basis points, whereas the new tariff policies introduced that year were expected to impact the company's actual costs by only 70 basis points. The additional revenue generated from the price increases has far exceeded the extra expenses incurred due to tariffs.
According to the claims in this class-action lawsuit, Logitech has fully received the corresponding tariff refunds from the US government. It should have returned the product premium previously collected under the guise of tariffs to the consumers who bore the cost of the price increases. Its current behavior of deliberately concealing refund information and refusing to return the money is suspected of consumer fraud.
Joe Cotchett, the lawyer handling this lawsuit, publicly stated that Logitech had initially convinced consumers to accept price hikes by citing rising tariff costs. Now that the relevant tariffs have been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, consumers should naturally receive a full refund for the premium they were forced to pay.
Before the dust had settled on this US class-action lawsuit, Logitech had already attracted widespread criticism from countless Chinese users due to low-level errors in its operational promotions, causing the brand's public image in the domestic market to hit a recent low.
Not long ago, Logitech released a short video advertisement to promote a new mouse, but the copy was pointed out by numerous netizens as containing highly insulting and inappropriate content, showing a complete lack of respect for the basic stance of domestic users.
The inappropriate copy in the video directly compared ordinary Chinese consumers to pets, implying that they would eagerly rush to buy if products were slightly discounted. This offensive content instantly ignited outrage among netizens, quickly propelling the related topics to trending lists on major social media platforms.
Following the outbreak of the public controversy, Logitech promptly issued an official apology, acknowledging that the wording in question had severely hurt the feelings of Chinese consumers. The brand publicly committed to taking full managerial responsibility, stating that the involved operational team had been seriously disciplined, ultimately resulting in an internal penalty decision of 200,000 yuan.
The disclosure of this disciplinary action sparked dissatisfaction among many netizens, who generally believed that the punishment for those responsible was too lenient and failed to serve as an adequate warning, making the so-called apology appear insincere.