Trial Over Ink Extortion Is a Blot On
H.P.'s Otherwise Stained Record
On August 10, 2023, Judge Beth Labson Freeman, in the Northern District of California, ruled, in Case No.: 5:22-cv-03794-BLF, that Hewlett-Packard Corporation must stand trial in a class action lawsuit brought against the IT Giant. [pdf will open] This was Judge Labson Freeman second ruling on the matter. The jurist first dismissed the action on procedural grounds in 2022, as David Hamilton, AP Business Writer, reported August 15, 2023. The judge did grant Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint.
After losing the first round, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, February 10, 2023. [pdf will open] The heart of the Complaint lies in Paragraphs 5 and 6.
5. What HP fails to disclose is that, if even one of the ink
cartridges is too low, empty, or damaged, the scanning function on the
“all-in-one” printer will be disabled and will not work as advertised.
None of HP’s advertising or marketing materials disclose the basic fact
that its All-in-One Printers do not scan documents when the devices have
low or empty ink cartridges.
6. It is well-documented that
ink is not required in order to scan or to fax a document, and it is
certainly possible to manufacture an All-in-One printer that scans or
faxes when the device is out of ink. Indeed, HP designs its All-in-One
printer products so they will not work without ink. Yet, HP does not
disclose this fact to consumers.
Using the scan and fax features as examples of functions that do not require ink, yet still fail when ink runs low, the Compliant alleges that this is places an undue hardship on Consumers when they must buy ink even when a Consumer only wants to scan or fax a document. Moreover, since "HP does not disclose this fact to consumers," Defendant demonstrates bad faith and deceptive business practices. Thus, the Complaint alleges, "Accordingly, purchasers of HP All-in-One Printers have been harmed as a result of its omissions."
The Complaint offers several pages of HP's advertising and marketing materials for the models HP Envy 6455e All-in-One Wireless Color Printer, purchased by Plaintiff Freund from Amazon.com, and HP Deskjet 2655 All-in-One Compact Printer, purchased by Plaintiff McMath. Freund resides in California, while McMath is a resident of Minnesota. So Consumer Protection laws from both states are referenced in the Complaint. Thus the Compliant casts a net far and wide for whom the class action may apply. Plaintiffs have brought the class action in the namr of "All persons who purchased a HP All-in-One Printer, in the United States, for personal/household use." Similarly the case is brought also brought specifically for inquired parties in California and Minnesota. Plaintiffs acknowledge that "that there are millions of class members" who may join the case in the future.
Although
I could not find a copy of HP's Answer to the Complaint, we can
certainly gleam its response from the ruling by
Labson Freeman Order denying dismissal and allowing
the case continue.
First, "HP argues that Plaintiffs have failed to identify the alleged design defect and allege HP’s knowledge with the requisite particularity." The Court disagreed and asserted "that Plaintiffs allege that certain HP all-in-one printers suffer from a flaw in which scanning and faxing functions are disabled when ink levels are low." [Order Pg. 5]
Next, "The Court finds these allegations sufficient at this stage to plausibly allege HP’s knowledge of the alleged design defect." [Ibid. 6] Furthermore, the Court also agreed with Plaintiffs' assertion that "HP knew of the defect before Plaintiffs’ purchase dates by alleging that HP designed its printers to have the alleged defect (and in that way, it was not a defect at all)". And, therefore, "The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately pled the alleged defect and HP’s knowledge of that defect." [Ibid. 7-8]
The Court also found that HP "had a duty to disclose" that its MFP units required ink for any function to work. Thus, ruling "that Plaintiffs have adequately pled that HP had a duty to disclose the alleged defect based on its exclusive knowledge."
The Court summarized its denying HP's Motion to Dismiss with the
following:
the Court finds that Plaintiffs have (1) plausibly pled an alleged defect and HP’s knowledge with sufficient particularity; (2) plausibly pled that HP had a duty to disclose the allegedly fraudulent omission; and (3) plausibly pled that the alleged defect occurs within the warranty period. Accordingly, HP’s motion to dismiss on each of these bases is denied.
The court went to dismiss other defenses and motions made by HP.
The Court did, however, rule in HP's favor over the question of
"equitable restitution: as one remedy. Since Plaintiffs had
already acted "concede their claims for
monetary damages or
restitution under the MDTPA,” the Court granted HP motion that the
claims under the Minnesota Defective Trade Practices Act be stricken."
[Ibid. 15]
Since the Court did rule this case can proceed under the Class Action Provisions of applicable state and federal laws, I suppose that any Consumer of a Hewlett-Packard MultiFunction Inkjet Printer can petition the court to be added as a Plaintiff in the matter. Moreover, it might be advantageous to do so sooner than later. In 2021, Canon, USA was also sued for the same action. Their MFP also failed to work when ink ran low. Since the outcome of that case is unknown, it is generally believed that Canon settled the matter out of court. If you wish to get in on the current matter involving HP, the Attorneys of Record are:
Trenton R. Kashima
(SBN 291405)
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
401
West C St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (714) 651-8845
tkashima@milberg.com
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gerald Reiff