Reprint: Court Directs Plaintiffs to Replead Most Claims in HP Printer Ink Cartridge Consumer Suit

An opinion issued Monday by the Northern District of California found mostly in favor of HP Inc. in a consumer plaintiff’s suit alleging that the printer maker purposefully pushed out firmware updates that rendered third-party ink cartridges incompatible with certain HP printers. The court granted permission for the plaintiff to amend most causes of action but ruled that he could not pursue the non-California legal claim classes.

This is the latest suit against HP for its alleged efforts to direct consumers towards its ink cartridges. It also brings claims under both the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California’s consumer remedy and antifraud laws. 

The plaintiff stated in his April-filed complaint that an ink cartridge must be compatible with the printer’s software and hardware in order to work with an HP printer. Although cartridges manufactured by other manufacturers are 25 to 75% cheaper than HP cartridges when they are used, they will return error messages due to HP updating their firmware. 

HP requested partial dismissal of suit on grounds of failure to state claim and lack of standing.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s 16-page opinion first addressed the plaintiff’s four fraud-based claims. The court found the complaint wanting in terms of both alleged misrepresentations and omissions on HP’s part. Concerning the first, the court found that the complaint only pointed to evidence that third-party cartridge functionality was misrepresented in investor materials and a strategy plan. This is not relevant to consumers.

Judge Freeman rejected the CFAA claim as the plaintiff did not allege the need for statutory damages of $5,000. The court granted leave for amendment and directed that the plaintiff plead aggregated damages stemming solely from an act of HP to succeed. 

In addition, the injunctive relief claims withstood HP’s standing challenge because the plaintiff alleged he could be harmed by conduct that could be repeated in the future. Lastly, Judge Freeman deferred judgment on whether choice of law issues precluded a nationwide class, citing the need for “a detailed and fact-intensive inquiry” into the substantive law applicable of class members’ claims. 

The plaintiff is represented by Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group and HP by DTO Law.