Parziale v. HP, Inc.

Background

This proposed nationwide class action concerns HP’s use of remote firmware updates in certain printers. John Parziale alleged that an April 2019 update changed how printer and cartridge chips communicated, causing certain third-party and refilled cartridges to stop working. He alleged that his printers would work only with original HP cartridges, that at least nine cartridges he owned no longer functioned, and that the printers were less useful and less valuable.

Parziale asserted claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law (FMAL), and the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), as well as a claim for trespass to chattels, a legal claim alleging unauthorized interference with personal property. He also sought injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring or prohibiting future conduct. Parziale represented that he would voluntarily withdraw his claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, so the court did not address HP’s arguments about that claim.

HP moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 9(b), 12(b)(6), and 12(f). HP argued that it had no duty to keep its printers compatible with non-HP cartridges, had made no misleading statements about compatibility, and had not acted unlawfully.

FDUTPA claim

The court held that the FDUTPA claim did not need to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened fraud-pleading standard because its central theory involved allegedly misleading omissions rather than fraud. But the court concluded that the alleged statements and omissions did not establish a deceptive act. The printer packaging statement that customers should use genuine HP ink “for best results” did not promise compatibility with all non-HP cartridges or permanent compatibility. The support page warned that dynamic-security measures “may prevent” supplies with non-HP chips or circuitry from working “now or in the future.” The court found that warning sufficient to counter any reasonable misunderstanding.

The court also rejected the unfair-practice theory. Although Parziale adequately alleged substantial injury, he did not adequately allege that the injury outweighed benefits identified by HP, such as protecting print quality, printing-system integrity, and HP’s intellectual property. He also did not adequately allege that consumers could not reasonably avoid the injury, because the support-page warning gave consumers notice and consumers could have bought another printer or avoided cartridges that might later become incompatible. The court dismissed Claim 1 without prejudice, and the conclusion stated that it was dismissed with leave to amend.

FMAL claim

The court dismissed Claim 2 under the FMAL. It found that the alleged representations and omissions were not misleading for the same reasons given in analyzing the FDUTPA claim. Because Parziale had not adequately alleged misleading advertising, the court did not decide whether he had adequately pleaded reliance or the other elements of fraudulent inducement. The claim was dismissed without prejudice, and the conclusion stated that it was dismissed with leave to amend.

CFAA claim

The court allowed the CFAA claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) to proceed. That provision concerns knowingly transmitting a program, code, or command that intentionally causes unauthorized damage to a protected computer. Although HP was authorized to access the printers and install firmware updates, Parziale alleged that HP knowingly transmitted the update and intentionally damaged the printers by reducing their functionality and value. The court found those allegations sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court dismissed the CFAA theories under §§ 1030(a)(5)(B) and (C), which require access without authorization, because Parziale alleged that HP exceeded authorized access rather than accessed the printers without authorization. The court also dismissed the theory under § 1030(a)(2)(C) because Parziale did not identify what information HP obtained, and dismissed the theory under § 1030(a)(6)(A) because he did not adequately allege that printer-to-cartridge communications functioned like passwords or that HP transferred or intended to transfer such information. The conclusion stated that these portions of Claim 3 were dismissed with leave to amend.

Trespass to chattels

The court denied dismissal of the trespass-to-chattels claim. Parziale alleged that HP exceeded the scope of its authorized access by activating a firmware update that disabled or limited the printers, reduced their value, and deprived users of their printers and non-HP cartridges. Relying in part on its earlier ruling involving similar allegations, the court found those allegations sufficient to state a claim even though HP had authorized access to the printers.

Injunctive relief

The court denied HP’s motion to strike Parziale’s request for injunctive relief. It found that Parziale had adequately alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized risk of another firmware update affecting printers he still owned. The court did not treat his failure to allege a desire to buy another HP printer as decisive because the alleged conduct could recur without a new purchase.

Disposition

Judge Davila granted HP’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in all other respects. Claims 1 and 2, and Claim 3 to the extent based on §§ 1030(a)(5)(B), 1030(a)(5)(C), 1030(a)(2)(C), and 1030(a)(6)(A), were dismissed with leave to amend. The motion to strike Parziale’s request for injunctive relief was denied. The court set May 22, 2020, as the deadline for filing and serving an amended complaint.