This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
Unfair Business Practices
False Advertising

In Re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation

Published: Jan. 10, 2020 | Filing Date: Apr. 25, 2019 |

Case number: 5:16-cv-05820-EJD Settlement –  $1,500,000

Judge

Edward J. Davila

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel C. Girard
(Girard Sharp LLP)

Jordan S. Elias
(Girard Sharp LLP)

Elizabeth A. Kramer
(Erickson, Kramer & Osborne LLP)

Todd M. Friedman
(Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC)

Adrian R. Bacon
(Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC)

Joseph R. Saveri
(Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc.)

Nicomedes S. Herrera
(Herrera Kennedy LLP)

Kyla J. Gibboney
(Gibbs Law Group LLP)

Daniel R. Karon
(Karon LLC)


Defendant

Samuel G. Liversidge
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)

Rodney J. Stone
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)


Facts

On September 13, 2016, Hewlett Packard implemented a firmware update that disabled thousands of home and small office printers across the United States. The update disabled printers that utilized non-HP manufactured printer cartridges. The video display message indicated to users that their cartridges needed to be changed. The printers would only reactivate when HP-manufactured cartridges were installed. Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against HP on behalf of consumers who owned printers and experienced the firmware disability.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended HP implemented the firmware update to prevent consumers from using their competitor's ink cartridges. Plaintiffs contended that HP makes most of its profit from ink cartridges while making little to no profit from the printers themselves. Plaintiffs contended the firmware update was merely a gambit to squeeze other cartridge competitors out of the market. Plaintiffs contended the defendant's actions violated numerous federal and state statutes, as well as common law Trespass to Chattels.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended their firmware was aimed at securing consumer's devices and meeting their expectations of a safe product. Defendant contended that its actions were a legal way of improving, not hindering, the consumer experience.

Result

The parties agreed to a settlement. HP will contribute $1.5 million to a cash fund aimed at reimbursing owners who owned HP printers from March 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017. HP is further prohibited from reinstalling or reactivating their firmware update.


#133667

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390